In a fresh twist in the personal insolvency case involving Zee founder Subhash Chandra, the National Company Law Tribunal has held that no majority verdict emerged on his proposed repayment plan after finding that the opinion of a third member differed materially from both members of the original Bench, according to a report by Bar and Bench.
The tribunal said on Monday that no order could be passed on the repayment plan at this stage and referred the matter afresh to the NCLT President under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, Bar and Bench reported.
“All said and done, no majority view has emerged in the matter. In the wake, no order can be passed at this stage,” the tribunal said, according to Bar and Bench.
Fresh hurdle for Subhash Chandra’s repayment plan
The latest clarification follows a 144-page opinion delivered by third member Nilesh Sharma on August 25, which had been widely understood as approving Chandra’s repayment proposal, Bar and Bench reported.
However, the original NCLT Bench, comprising Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri, concluded that Sharma’s opinion differed substantially from both earlier views and therefore did not create the majority required for a final order, according to the legal news publication.
“The approval of repayment plan by confining the same to assenting creditors, with liberty to banks/financial institutions/dissenting creditors to recover their debt, as held by Member (J) in the original order, is different from approval of the plan, extinguishing the claim of all the creditors including banks and financial institutions as held by the Ld. Third Member,” the NCLT said, according to Bar and Bench.
How the Subhash Chandra insolvency dispute reached a third member
The case originated from a split verdict delivered by Bhardwaj and Puri on September 3, 2025, Bar and Bench reported.
Bhardwaj approved Chandra’s repayment plan but limited its binding effect to creditors who supported it, allowing dissenting banks and financial institutions to pursue independent remedies for debt recovery.
Puri rejected the plan, citing serious procedural violations in the personal insolvency resolution process. She also raised questions over the participation of entities allegedly associated with Chandra in the creditor vote and criticised the conduct of the resolution professional.
The disagreement resulted in the matter being placed before Sharma as the third member.
Why the third member’s verdict did not create a majority
Sharma approved the repayment plan but rejected Bhardwaj’s position on dissenting creditors, holding that Section 115 did not permit an approved plan to apply selectively.
According to Bar and Bench, Sharma held that the repayment plan had to bind all creditors, regardless of whether they had voted for or against it.
He also excluded claims filed through Anil Kumar on behalf of 960 individuals and Sunil Jain on behalf of 300 individuals, directing that the related repayment amount be redistributed among the remaining eligible creditors.
The original Bench concluded that these differences materially changed the operation of the repayment plan. As a result, it found that Sharma had delivered an independent opinion rather than concurring with either of the original members in a manner that produced a majority, Bar and Bench reported.
What happens next in the Subhash Chandra insolvency case?
The August 25 opinion has not been recalled or reversed. However, it did not crystallise into a final order approving the repayment plan because the tribunal has now found that no statutory majority emerged, according to Bar and Bench.
The matter will now be referred back to the NCLT President for a fresh reference. The latest development could also affect the appeal pending before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, which Bar and Bench reported may now be rendered infructuous.