New Delhi: A malicious media narrative has been manufactured over the last 15 days around a Rs 6.5 crore repayment proposal against creditor claims of Rs 22,006 crore, causing unfair reputational damage to Essel Group chairman Subhash Chandra, his legal team told the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Wednesday.
This narrative has been created despite no final NCLT order actually being in effect, senior advocate Sasmit Patra, appearing for
Chandra, said.
The proceedings had resulted in a “media trial” that had tarnished his client’s reputation across the country, even though the August 25 opinion, approving the repayment plan had not crystallised into a final, enforceable NCLT order, Patra said.
“The fact is that there is no order today standing in this matter. But for the last 15 days, the personal guarantor, Subhash Chandra, has been vilified across this country, saying that he has done Rs 6.5 crore into Rs 22,000 crore,” the counsel submitted before the NCLAT coram of officiating chairperson Justice Yogesh Khanna and technical members Barun Mitra and Ajai Das Mehrotra.
The NCLAT observed that it was not passing any order on Patra’s submission and said Chandra could raise his grievance before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), where the insolvency proceedings are pending.
Patra strongly questioned the jurisdiction and authority of constituting a 5-member NCLT bench to re-evaluate the repayment plan, during the same hearing.
Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, read with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), provides a very narrow scope and does not empower the tribunal to form such a bench, he argued.
“The scope of Section 419(5) is very limited. If there is a differing view, then that differing view has to be taken up by another member or other members. It does not empower the NCLT under the IBC or company law to form a five-member bench,” the lawyer submitted.
He further disputed the lenders’ contention that the three NCLT members who considered the repayment plan had delivered completely divergent opinions.
Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma had both favoured approval of the repayment plan and were aligned on the eligibility issue under Section 79 of the IBC, Patra claimed. Their difference, he said, was primarily over the treatment of dissenting creditors.
“Both are equally on the same page as far as Section 79 is concerned on eligibility. Therefore, to say all these issues have to be re-litigated is completely wrong,” Patra argued, as reported by Zee Business.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the appellant-lenders, initially sought to withdraw the lenders’ appeals with liberty to revive them if necessary.
The appeals might no longer require immediate consideration since the 5-member NCLT bench had stayed the August 25 opinion and decided to hear the case afresh.
Patra opposed withdrawal with liberty to revive. He pointed out that the lenders’ appeals were defective because no final order had crystallised out of the August 25 opinion.
Mehta decided not to press the withdrawal applications following the opposition and requested that the appeals remain pending. The NCLAT agreed and listed them for October 7, 2026.
The hearing comes days after a 5-member NCLT bench reportedly stayed the August 25 order approving Dr Chandra’s repayment plan, setting the stage for a fresh consideration of the proposal.