NCLT stays settlement order in setback for Zee’s Subhash Chandra
text_fields
Photo: IANS
New Delhi: Less than a week after a single-member bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) allowed Zee Group founder and former Rajya Sabha MP Subhash Chandra to settle insolvency proceedings by paying around Rs 6.5 crore against an admitted liability exceeding Rs 22,000 crore, a five-member NCLT bench on Monday stayed the August 25 order.
The five-member bench issued notices to all concerned parties and barred Chandra from directly or indirectly selling, transferring or otherwise alienating any of his properties until further orders, The Wire reported.
The August 25 decision had triggered considerable controversy after the single member accepted Chandra’s proposal to settle liabilities arising from personal guarantees he had provided for loans taken by group companies. The settlement involved payment of only about Rs 6.5 crore against the admitted liability of more than Rs 22,000 crore.
Chandra had maintained that he had not personally borrowed the Rs 22,000 crore from banks and financial institutions, including public sector lenders. According to him, the figure represented liabilities arising from personal guarantees he had given for loans obtained by various borrowing entities.
The decision also came under scrutiny over the lenders who supported the settlement, with reports noting that some of them could be traced to companies owned or managed by Chandra’s close relatives. Chandra, meanwhile, had alleged that Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani was responsible for the difficulties he was facing.
On Monday, following directions from NCLT president Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, the tribunal constituted a five-member bench to reconsider the matter. It is the first time in the NCLT’s history that such a five-member bench has been formed to examine a case.
The tribunal noted that the earlier two-member bench had failed to produce a majority view. One member had approved the settlement subject to certain conditions, another had rejected it completely, while the third had supported the settlement but proposed different terms. As a result, no majority decision had emerged on the matter.