NCLT Backs Subhash Chandra Repayment Plan: ₹6.5 Crore Proposed Against ₹22,006.57 Crore Admitted Claims
The New Delhi bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) pronounced a third-member opinion on 25 August 2026 in the personal-guarantor insolvency of Dr. Subhash Chandra, favouring approval of his repayment plan of ₹6.5 crore under section 114 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). One week later, on 1 September 2026, a five-member Special Principal Bench of the NCLT stayed that order because the three members who had heard the matter did not produce a clear majority.
The NCLT orders listed by IBBI record the 25 August order in Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited vs. Dr. Subhash Chandra (Company Petition No. (IB)-97(ND)/2022) as "Approval of Repayment Plan in PG case" and the 1 September order as "Stay".
The repayment plan in numbers
| Item | Figure |
|---|---|
| Amount offered by the personal guarantor | ₹6.5 crore |
| Claims referred to in the order | Approximately ₹21,697 crore |
| Creditor vote in favour | 80.814% by value of claims |
| Recovery against claims | About 0.03% |
The 144-page order of 25 August 2026 records that the plan was approved by 80.814% of the voting share. According to the order, about 62% of the votes in favour came from five entities (Veena Investments, Direct Media, World Crest, Lemonade Capital and Corpcall), while banks and other lenders including LIC Housing Finance, HDFC Bank, Canara Bank, RBL Bank and IDBI Trusteeship (for Franklin Templeton) voted against; IndusInd Bank did not vote.
Why a third member was needed
The two members of the original bench, Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri, differed. The matter was referred on 9 February 2026 under section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 to Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma as third member.
The view favouring approval
The judicial member read section 114 narrowly. In his view the statute leaves no room for the Tribunal to form an independent view outside the resolution professional's report, and section 114(3) (reconsideration) applies only where a plan fails at the creditors' meeting. He also held that an entity is an "associate" of the debtor only where the debtor holds an actual ownership stake, so the family-controlled entities could vote. He noted that rejecting the plan would lead to bankruptcy under section 128(1)(c), where creditors would gain little because the estate was valued below the amount offered.
The view favouring rejection
The technical member held that a repayment plan must comply with the IBC or be rejected, relying on K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank and ArcelorMittal India v. Satish Kumar Gupta. She treated entities controlled by an associate of the debtor as associates, and found several procedural breaches, including:
- no meaningful negotiation under section 100(2);
- the creditors' meeting of 24 October 2024 called at shorter notice than the 14 days required under sections 106(4)(a) and 107(1);
- voting extended only up to 31 October 2024, a Diwali holiday (section 108(4));
- excluded assets beyond the limits in section 79(14) and the rules;
- no concurrence from secured creditor STCI Finance under section 110(5).
She also pointed to net worth certificates of ₹40,562 crore (2018) and USD 7.17 billion (2017), against the reduced figure of ₹31.79 crore, and recommended a forensic audit, exclusion of associate entities from voting and a fresh creditors' meeting.
The 1 September stay
The order of the five-member Special Principal Bench dated 1 September 2026, headed by NCLT President Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, notes that the three members took three different positions: one approved the plan as it was, one rejected it, and the third approved it with conditions that excluded certain claims. As no clear majority emerged under section 419(5), the Bench stayed the 25 August order approving the repayment plan, barred the personal guarantor from alienating any assets directly or indirectly, issued notice to all parties and listed the matter for 23 September 2026. As of 27 September 2026, the IBBI listing shows the 1 September stay as the latest order in the case.
Why this matters for IPs and lenders
The case tests how far an adjudicating authority can look behind a creditor vote on a personal-guarantor repayment plan, how "associate" is read for voting, and how strictly the notice and voting timelines in sections 106 to 108 are enforced. Insolvency professionals running personal-guarantor processes should document negotiations, keep to the 14-day notice rules and justify every excluded asset.
Updated on 27 September 2026: added the case number and official orders, the two members' reasoning and the 1 September 2026 stay by the five-member bench; corrected the earlier account, which treated the third-member opinion as a step towards approval and relied on reported figures, to the positions recorded in the NCLT orders.
