The National Company Law Tribunal, or NCLT, has approved a repayment plan for Zee Group founder Subhash Chandra. Under the plan, Chandra will pay ₹6.5 crore against admitted creditor claims of ₹22,006.57 crore. The decision means creditors will recover only about 0.03% of the total amount claimed. The lenders will face a loss, or haircut, of almost 99.97%.
The case has drawn attention because of the huge gap between the amount owed and the amount set for repayment. A claim of more than ₹22,000 crore will receive a payment of only ₹6.5 crore. The NCLT has, however, accepted the plan after a detailed review of the case and the creditors’ vote.
What The ₹6.5 Crore Plan Means
The ₹6.5 crore amount is not a payment by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. It is a repayment plan for Subhash Chandra in his personal insolvency case. This distinction is important because the case concerns Chandra as a personal guarantor, not a direct settlement by ZEE for the full ₹22,006.57 crore claim.
Out of the ₹6.5 crore, ₹6.25 crore will go to creditors. The remaining ₹25 lakh will cover costs linked to the insolvency process. Based on the admitted claims, creditors will get only about 0.03% of their dues.
In simple terms, for every ₹100 that creditors have claimed, the plan offers only about three paise. That makes this one of the most striking personal insolvency cases in terms of the gap between total claims and proposed recovery.
Creditors Backed The Plan
The plan had support from creditors who held 80.81% of the voting share. Under the insolvency process, creditors have a major role in deciding whether a repayment proposal is acceptable.
Some lenders, however, opposed the plan. They raised concerns about the very low amount offered against their claims. One example was LIC Housing Finance. Its admitted claim was ₹1,322.39 crore, while the amount due to it under the plan was reported at about ₹38.09 lakh. That works out to roughly 0.028% of its admitted claim.
Despite such objections, the NCLT held that it could not replace the commercial judgment of the creditors with its own view. The tribunal said its role was mainly supervisory, corrective and judicial.
Why Did NCLT Approve Such A Small Amount?
The main question for many people is simple: why would a tribunal approve ₹6.5 crore when the claims stand at ₹22,006.57 crore?
The NCLT referred to the value of Chandra’s personal estate and the possible recovery available through the resolution process. The tribunal noted that the value of his personal estate was far below the amount of the creditors’ claims.
The tribunal also took the view that a resolution of Chandra’s insolvency could give creditors a better chance to recover money from the main borrowers linked to the debt. The court did not treat the ₹6.5 crore amount as a full reflection of the total debt. Instead, it assessed the proposal under the rules of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, or IBC.
This point is important. Approval of the plan does not mean the tribunal has declared that ₹22,006.57 crore was never owed. It means the insolvency process has accepted a specific repayment plan based on the facts, assets and legal framework before it.
How The Case Started
The roots of the case go back to a ₹170 crore loan given to Vivek Infracon. Chandra had provided a personal guarantee for that loan. When the loan later turned bad, Indiabulls Housing Finance took legal action against him as the personal guarantor.
The company filed the insolvency case in 2022. In April 2024, the NCLT admitted the personal insolvency plea against Chandra. Indiabulls Housing Finance later changed its name to Sammaan Capital Ltd.
Chandra had earlier challenged the authority of the NCLT to deal with an individual’s insolvency. The tribunal rejected that argument in May 2022 and appointed a resolution professional. Chandra then took the matter to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, or NCLAT.
A settlement was later discussed, but it did not take effect. After the Supreme Court upheld the relevant IBC provisions in November 2023, Indiabulls revived the insolvency case in February 2024.
Why There Was A Split In The NCLT
The approval did not come from a simple first vote by the tribunal. The original two-member NCLT bench had different views on the repayment plan.
Because of this difference, a third judicial member was brought in to decide the points on which the original members disagreed. NCLT member Nilesh Sharma gave the deciding opinion in favour of the plan.
His approval cleared the main legal hurdle for the repayment proposal. The case will now return to the original division bench for the formal order and further steps under the majority view.
What Happens To Opposing Creditors?
The NCLT has also made clear that the approved plan will apply to all creditors covered by the process. This includes creditors who voted against the proposal.
Under Section 115 of the IBC, once a repayment plan receives approval, it becomes binding on the creditors covered by it. Dissenting lenders cannot simply pursue the old claims outside the approved plan.
The resolution professional must also prepare a revised and final list of creditors. The final list will take account of certain exclusions and then allow the approved repayment amount to be shared among eligible creditors.
One part of the order relates to claims filed on behalf of 1,260 individuals from Haryana. Those claims are subject to exclusion from the final creditor list, after which the available repayment amount will be redistributed among the remaining eligible creditors.
A Huge Haircut For Lenders
The numbers make the scale of the case clear. Against admitted claims of ₹22,006.57 crore, the approved plan provides ₹6.5 crore.
That means creditors will receive about 0.03% of their admitted dues. The implied haircut is close to 99.97%. For lenders, this represents an extremely small recovery compared with the size of their claims.
At the same time, the NCLT’s decision shows how personal insolvency cases work under the IBC. The tribunal does not simply order a person to pay the full claim when the person’s assets cannot support such a payment. Instead, it examines the repayment plan, the creditors’ decision, the available assets and the legal rules.
Why The Case Matters
The Subhash Chandra case is likely to remain important because of the sheer size of the numbers. A ₹22,006.57 crore claim pool has resulted in a ₹6.5 crore repayment plan.
It also raises wider questions about recovery for banks and financial institutions when large personal guarantees fail. Creditors may have to accept a very large haircut when the guarantor’s available assets cannot support the debt.
For Chandra, the NCLT approval provides a path toward resolution of his personal insolvency case. For creditors, it closes the door on recovery outside the approved plan, subject to the final procedural steps.
The key fact remains simple: the NCLT has approved a ₹6.5 crore repayment plan against ₹22,006.57 crore of admitted claims. The plan does not mean ZEE itself has agreed to pay ₹6.5 crore to settle ₹22,000 crore. It relates to Subhash Chandra’s personal insolvency process as a guarantor.
The final outcome will now depend on the formal order and the steps required to put the approved plan into effect. For creditors, however, the basic recovery figure is already clear: about 0.03% of the admitted claims.
ALSO READ: Pavna Industries FY26 Annual Report: Investor View
