The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has sought responses from multiple lenders and other respondents on an appeal filed by Essel Group
Chairman Subhash Chandra against restrictions imposed on his assets during ongoing personal insolvency proceedings. A three-member NCLAT bench comprising Officiating Chairperson Justice Yogesh Khanna and Technical Members Barun Mitra and Ajai Das Mehrotra issued notice on Tuesday. Chandra has challenged a September 1 order of the Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which directed that he could not transfer or otherwise alienate his assets while the insolvency proceedings against him as a personal guarantor remain underway, according to a Live Law report. The appellate tribunal has issued notice to Resolution Professional (RP) Shiv Nandan Sharma and several financial institutions. The respondents include Canara Bank Stressed Asset Recovery Management Branch, HDFC Bank Limited, IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited, IndusInd Bank Limited, LIC Housing Finance Ltd, RBL Bank Limited and Union Bank of India. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the respondents, told the NCLAT that the dispute is already pending before the Delhi NCLT. He noted that the matter is scheduled for hearing on November 19 and sought a later date for the present appeals, arguing that they would require detailed consideration. Mehta also questioned the maintainability of the appeals, as per the report. Creditors’ Challenge To Repayment Plan Also Pending The proceedings before the appellate tribunal are also connected to a separate challenge concerning Chandra’s repayment plan. Mehta informed the bench that creditors have filed an appeal against the repayment plan, which is listed before the NCLAT on October 7. He suggested that the matters be taken up together. The creditors had challenged Dr Chandra's repayment plan on August 31. Following the latest proceedings, the matters have been listed for further hearing on October 29 and 30. Dispute Over Rs 6.25 Crore Repayment Plan The insolvency case stems from an application filed by Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), against Chandra in his role as a personal guarantor. His proposed repayment plan involved paying Rs 6.25 crore to creditors against admitted claims amounting to Rs 22,006.57 crore. The proposal additionally included Rs 25 lakh towards the costs of the insolvency process. The repayment plan had initially been examined by an NCLT Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri. The two members delivered separate judgments on September 3, 2025, resulting in a difference of opinion. The matter was subsequently referred to Nilesh Sharma, Member (Judicial), NCLT Mumbai Bench, who was appointed as the third member. Third Member Approved Plan, But Dispute Continued Sharma pronounced his order on August 25, 2026, approving Chandra's repayment proposal. However, he directed that claims submitted through Anil Kumar on behalf of 960 individuals and through Sunil Jain on behalf of 300 individuals should not form part of the final list of creditors. The amounts earmarked for those claims were instead directed to be distributed among the remaining eligible creditors. Sharma also held that the approved repayment plan would be binding on all creditors, including those who had not supported it, under Section 115 of the IBC. When the case returned to the original NCLT Bench on August 31 for consequential directions, the members concluded that a majority view had not emerged on the repayment plan. The matter was consequently referred to the NCLT President under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The NCLT President then constituted a five-member Special Bench to address the issue. NCLT Special Bench Had Stayed Repayment Plan Order The five-member Special Bench subsequently stayed the August 25 order passed by the third member that had approved Chandra’s repayment plan. The Special Bench found that there was no clear majority position on the proposal. The earlier split in the NCLT proceedings was central to the dispute. While Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj had supported approval of the repayment plan, Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri had rejected it, citing procedural irregularities, including issues concerning the admission of claims and the voting process. The Special Bench also imposed a restriction on Chandra's assets, directing that he, as the personal guarantor, “shall not alienate any assets whatsoever either directly or indirectly.” Chandra has now approached the NCLAT against the Special Bench's order. The appellate proceedings will continue, with the matters listed for further consideration on October 29 and 30.
