Explained: What The NCLT's ₹6.25 Cr Order In Zee Founder Chandra's Case Actually Means

A tribunal ruling in the personal insolvency case of Zee Group founder Subhash Chandra has triggered a public disagreement over how large his real liability is.

The National Company Law Tribunal has approved a plan requiring Chandra to pay just ₹6.25 crore against admitted claims of ₹22,006 crore, a gap widely reported as a 99.97% haircut for banks. Government sources call that framing inaccurate, dissenting lenders call the payout too low, and Chandra disputes the size of the claim itself.

How Did This Case Reach The Tribunal?

Government sources said the proceedings began with a personal guarantee Chandra had given for a loan taken by Vivek Infracon from Indiabulls. When that loan defaulted, insolvency proceedings were opened against Chandra in his individual capacity as guarantor, not against any company that had actually borrowed the money, the sources said.

The case went before the Delhi bench of the NCLT, where two members returned a split verdict. The matter was referred to a third, judicial member Nilesh Sharma, who approved the settlement under Section 114 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

In his order, Sharma pointed to a valuation carried out by the Resolution Professional, which found that Chandra's personal estate held far less value than the settlement amount. He concluded that pushing Chandra into bankruptcy would likely leave the objecting creditors with even smaller recoveries.

Government sources confirmed that the plan requires Chandra to pay ₹6.25 crore from his personal assets, while about ₹1,494 crore would come separately from the companies that originally borrowed the funds. The sources said the plan had the backing of creditors holding 80.81% of the voting share.

Is ₹22,000 Cr Money Chandra Personally Borrowed?

No, according to government sources. They said the NCLT's approval does not amount to banks writing off 99.97% of ₹22,000 crore in loans. The ₹22,006 crore figure, they explained, reflects the total claims admitted against Chandra as a guarantor for loans taken by several Essel and Zee-linked companies, not money he borrowed in his own name.

The sources added that Chandra's guarantee applied at the time of borrowing for only about ₹2,574 crore of these claims, while the remaining guarantees were added later as extra security. They also stressed that the underlying corporate borrowers remain liable for their debts, and that lenders can still pursue recovery from those companies, their pledged securities and other assets, separate from what Chandra settles personally.

Why Are Lenders Opposing The Plan?

LIC Housing Finance was among the creditors who voted against the plan, calling a ₹6.25 crore payout against its share of the ₹22,006 crore in claims "unviable and unlawful." HDFC Bank said in a statement that it too had rejected the resolution and was exploring an appeal. Government sources named Axis Bank, Canara Bank, RBL Bank and Union Bank as the other dissenting lenders, and said the NCLT considered their combined objections insufficient to override a plan that already had majority creditor support.

Government sources also said creditors had questioned the settlement using older net worth certificates, which placed Chandra's wealth at about ₹45,888 crore in 2017 and ₹40,562 crore in 2018. His currently declared net worth is around ₹31.79 crore, a decline that led creditors to seek closer scrutiny of his assets.

A report by Economic Times, said LICHFL and HDFC Bank now intend to challenge the order at the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. LICHFL is also said to be considering a separate approach to the National Housing Bank.

Notably, Chandra addressed the criticism on Thursday, saying he had not borrowed money from any lender directly. He said the claim raised specifically by the objecting creditors stood at ₹3,992 crore, far below the widely cited ₹22,000 crore figure. Of this, he said ₹620 crore had already been settled and ₹1,063 crore was being offered by the borrowing companies. He added that entities for which he had provided guarantees had collectively repaid ₹43,000 crore to lenders so far, and that they would continue clearing any remaining dues.

Government sources said Chandra's case is an exceptional personal-guarantor resolution and does not represent typical corporate insolvency recoveries under the IBC. They cited data showing creditors have recovered about ₹4.32 lakh crore through resolution plans approved up to March 2026, equal to 116.85% of liquidation value and 94.56% of fair value.

The sources also pointed to more than 32,000 cases involving assets worth close to ₹14 lakh crore that were settled even before formal admission into insolvency proceedings, describing this as evidence of the law's deterrent effect. They cited a fall in the banking system's net non-performing assets, from 5.94% in March 2018 to 0.48% in September 2025, with the absolute figure dropping from about ₹5.2 lakh crore to ₹94,000 crore over the same period. Referring to a study by IIM Ahmedabad, the sources said firms resolved through insolvency recorded 76% growth in sales, 50% growth in total assets, 50% growth in employee expenses and 130% growth in capital expenditure.

The case now returns to the original two-member bench of the NCLT, which must issue a formal order reflecting the majority view under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. LICHFL and HDFC Bank are expected to pursue their appeal before the NCLAT, while creditors' claims against the Essel and Zee companies and their assets remain separate and unresolved.