Subhash Chandra’s ₹22,006 Crore Insolvency Case: NCLAT Issues Notice Over Asset Restraint

The NCLAT has issued notice on Subhash Chandra’s appeals challenging an NCLT order restricting him from transferring or otherwise alienating his assets during personal insolvency proceedings.

The insolvency proceedings involving Essel Group Chairman Subhash Chandra have moved to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which has issued notice on his appeals challenging restrictions placed on his assets.

The appeals arise from a September 1, 2026 order of the Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The order restrained Chandra, in his capacity as a personal guarantor, from alienating his assets while the insolvency proceedings continue.

The matter was heard by an NCLAT bench comprising Officiating Chairperson Justice Yogesh Khanna and Technical Members Barun Mitra and Ajai Das Mehrotra.

What Is the Subhash Chandra Insolvency Case?

The insolvency proceedings originated from an application filed by Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against Chandra as a personal guarantor.

Chandra’s proposed repayment plan offered ₹6.25 crore to creditors, against admitted claims of approximately ₹22,006.57 crore. The proposal also included ₹25 lakh towards insolvency resolution process costs.

As part of the proceedings, the NCLT directed Chandra not to alienate any of his assets, either directly or indirectly.

The asset restraint has now become one of the issues before the appellate tribunal.

Why Did Subhash Chandra Approach NCLAT?

Chandra has challenged the NCLT order imposing the restriction on the alienation of his assets.

The dispute is part of a broader series of proceedings concerning his repayment plan, which has faced differing views within the NCLT.

In September 2025, a bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri delivered separate judgments on the repayment plan.

Following the difference of opinion, the matter was referred to Nilesh Sharma, Member (Judicial), NCLT Mumbai Bench, as the third member.

Third Member Approved Repayment Plan

On August 25, 2026, Nilesh Sharma passed an order approving Chandra’s repayment plan.

However, the order excluded claims submitted through Anil Kumar on behalf of 960 individuals and claims submitted through Sunil Jain on behalf of 300 individuals from the final list of creditors.

The amounts earmarked for those claims were directed to be redistributed among the remaining eligible creditors.

Sharma also held that the approved repayment plan would bind all creditors, including those who had assented to the plan and those who had dissented, under Section 115 of the IBC.

Why Has the Repayment Plan Faced Further Proceedings?

When the matter returned to the original NCLT bench on August 31 for the consequential order, the bench concluded that there was no majority view on the issue.

The matter was subsequently referred to the NCLT President under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.

A five-member Special Bench was then constituted to consider the matter.

The Special Bench noted the differing positions of the original members. Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj had approved the repayment plan, while Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri had rejected it, citing alleged irregularities concerning matters including the admission of claims and voting.

Chandra has challenged the Special Bench’s order before the NCLAT.

What Did Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Tell NCLAT?

During the NCLAT proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the respondents, told the tribunal that the matter was already pending before the Delhi NCLT.

According to the proceedings cited by Live Law Biz, Mehta said the matter was listed before the NCLT for November 19 and requested that the appeals be taken up on a later date because they required detailed consideration.

He also raised an issue concerning the maintainability of the appeals.

Mehta further informed the appellate tribunal that creditors had separately challenged Chandra’s repayment plan. That appeal was listed before the NCLAT for October 7, and he suggested that the matters be heard together.

The creditors’ appeal against the repayment plan was filed on August 31.

When Will NCLAT Hear the Case?

The NCLAT has issued notice to the respondents, including Resolution Professional Shiv Nandan Sharma and the creditors.

The appeals have been listed for further hearing on October 29 and 30, according to the proceedings reported by Live Law Biz.

The proceedings concerning Chandra’s challenge to the Special Bench’s order are also continuing separately.

The matters are listed as Dr. Subhash Chandra Personal Guarantor vs Shiv Nandan Sharma, Resolution Professional, under Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 1818/2026 and 1856/2026.

The latest NCLAT proceedings do not by themselves determine the final outcome of Chandra’s repayment plan or the underlying insolvency case. Those issues remain subject to further proceedings before the NCLT and NCLAT.