World

NCLT Establishes 5-Member Bench to Review Subhash Chandra's Repayment Plan

The NCLT's special five-member bench will assess the repayment strategy of Subhash Chandra amid divided opinions on the case.

1 September 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: NCLT Establishes 5-Member Bench to Review Subhash Chandra's Repayment Plan — Archive photoPhoto: Ameyakhandekar11 · Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 4.0

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has constituted its first-ever five-member bench to evaluate the repayment plan of Subhash Chandra, who is the personal guarantor for loans taken by companies associated with Essel and Zee. The decision to form this special bench comes after a previous Division Bench was unable to reach a majority verdict regarding his case, which involves claims exceeding ₹22,000 crore.

In addition to reviewing Chandra's repayment plan, the five-member bench will also consider a plea from Indiabulls Housing Finance challenging a ₹6.5 crore payment order validated by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has argued that this ruling could undermine the principles set forth in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The NCLT has issued a stay on the approval of Chandra’s proposed repayment of ₹6.25 crore. Furthermore, the tribunal has instructed him not to sell or dispose of any property, directly or indirectly, while the proceedings are ongoing.

The case highlights significant financial liabilities and legal complexities associated with Chandra's role as a guarantor. The implications of the NCLT's decisions will be closely monitored as the case progresses through the judicial process.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.