NCLT stays order approving Subhash Chandra's repayment plan, matter listed for Sept 23

A five-member Special Bench said no clear majority view had emerged in the matter and stayed the August 25 order of the third member.

by e4m Staff
Published: Sep 1, 2026 6:02 PM | 2 min read

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in New Delhi stayed an August 25, 2026 order that approved a repayment plan in the personal insolvency proceedings of Dr. Subhash Chandra on September 1, 2026.
The case, Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited vs. Dr. Subhash Chandra, was referred to a five-member Special Bench due to differing opinions among the original division bench members regarding the repayment plan.
The original bench had dissenting judgments, with one member approving the plan and another rejecting it due to process irregularities; the third member's qualified approval led to the current stay.
The NCLT ordered that the personal guarantor must not alienate any assets and scheduled the next hearing for September 23, 2026.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, on September 1 stayed an August 25, 2026 order that had approved a repayment plan in the personal insolvency proceedings involving Dr Subhash Chandra.

The matter, Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited vs Dr Subhash Chandra, is being heard under Section 95(1). A five-member Special Bench of the NCLT was constituted after differing views emerged among members who had earlier heard the matter.

According to the September 1 order, the original division bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri had delivered dissenting judgments on September 3, 2025.

Following the difference of opinion, the matter was referred to Nilesh Sharma, Member (Judicial), NCLT Mumbai Bench, as the third member. His judgment was pronounced on August 25, 2026.

The NCLT order records that Bhardwaj had approved the repayment plan and observed that dissenting financial creditors who had participated in the voting process could pursue remedies available under law for recovery of their remaining debt.

Puri, however, had rejected the repayment plan, citing various irregularities in the process, including those relating to admission of claims and voting.

The third member, Sharma, approved the repayment plan but qualified the approval. He directed the exclusion of claims submitted through Anil Kumar on behalf of 960 individuals and Sunil Jain on behalf of 300 individuals from the final list of creditors, with the amount allocated to them to be redistributed among the remaining eligible creditors.

He also held that the approved repayment plan would be binding on all creditors, including both assenting and dissenting creditors, in accordance with Section 115 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The September 1 order noted that the third member had differed from Bhardwaj's view on this issue.

The five-member Special Bench subsequently held that there was no clear majority view capable of being given effect to under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. It therefore stayed Sharma's August 25 order.

The Tribunal also directed that the personal guarantor “shall not alienate any assets whatsoever either directly or indirectly”.

Notices have been directed to be issued to parties in the pending interlocutory applications, with replies, if any, to be filed before the next date of hearing.

The matter has been listed for September 23, 2026, at 10 am.