The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has constituted a five-member bench to decide the personal insolvency case against Zee Group founder Subhash Chandra after a two-member bench held that no majority opinion had emerged on his repayment plan, Bar & Bench reported.
The development concerns Chandra's proposal to pay ₹6.25 crore to creditors against admitted claims of ₹22,006.57 crore.
NCLT President Justice (retd) Anupinder Singh Grewal has constituted the five-member bench comprising himself, Judicial Members Bachu Venkat Balaram Das and Mahendra Khandelwal, and Technical Members Atul Chaturvedi and Ravindra Chaturvedi.
Subhash Chandra's proposed repayment plan involves paying ₹6.25 crore to creditors against admitted claims of ₹22,006.57 crore.
The plan was referred to a five-member bench because a two-member bench found no majority opinion on the repayment plan, leading to differing positions on its approval.
Nilesh Sharma approved the repayment plan but excluded certain claims, leading to a conclusion that no majority opinion emerged from the original documents, which influenced the referral to a larger bench.
Creditors, including HDFC Bank and LIC Housing Finance, have challenged the repayment plan, arguing that it underrepresents the recoverable amount and raises concerns over the voting process involving related entities.
No immediate resolution is expected as the matter has been referred back for further review, delaying any final order on the repayment plan.
The special bench will hear the matter at 10.15 am on September 1, according to the report.
On August 31, a two-member bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri held that no final order could be passed based on the opinion delivered by third member Nilesh Sharma on August 25.
According to Bar & Bench, the two-member bench found that the three members had taken materially different positions on Chandra's repayment plan.
Bhardwaj had originally favoured approving the plan only in relation to creditors who supported it. He had proposed allowing dissenting creditors, including banks and financial institutions, to continue pursuing independent remedies for recovery of their debts.
Puri, however, rejected the repayment plan after finding serious defects in the process followed by the resolution professional.
Following the split verdict, the matter was referred to Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.
On August 25, Sharma opined that the repayment plan should be approved. However, he excluded claims submitted through Anil Kumar on behalf of 960 individuals and Sunil Jain on behalf of 300 individuals.
