The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Monday (August 31, 2026) formed a five-member Bench to decide on media baron Subhash Chandra’s repayment plan in a personal insolvency case involving claims of more than ₹22,000 crore after a Division Bench failed to reach a majority verdict.
The Division Bench had referred the personal insolvency case against the Essel Group chairman to the tribunal’s president for fresh adjudication after failing to reach majority consensus on a proposed ₹6.5 crore repayment plan despite referring the matter to a third judge.
The Bench will start hearing at 10.15 a.m. on Tuesday in the Principal Bench of NCLT. The third member’s order, dated August 26, backing the ₹6.5 crore repayment plan, was sent back to the original Division Bench for a formal order in line with the majority opinion, as required under Section 419 (5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Third Member approved the plan but extinguished the right of all the creditors by applying Section 115(1) of the Code uniformly,” it said.
The five-member Bench, formed for the first time in the NCLT’s history, will be led by president Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal. The other members are Bachu Venkat Balaram Das, Mahendra Khandelwal, Atul Chaturvedi and Ravindra Chaturvedi. “While Member (Technical) rejected the plan, the Member (Judicial) confined the plan to those who accepted and approved it and accorded liberty to dissenting creditors to recover their debt. He did not extinguish the claim of banks/financial institutions/dissenting creditors qua principal debtor/debtor/PG. Mr.
The Bench said the “Third Member consciously passed an independent order. Thus, no majority view emerges” and hence “no order can be passed at this stage”. Mehta, who also represented Canara Bank and Union Bank, said that if the order is allowed to continue, it will “defeat the very purpose of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code” and requested that the Bench hear it at 2 p.m.
However, the Division Bench on Monday said no majority view has emerged despite reconsidering the matter, following a differing opinion from a third member of the tribunal, and referred the matter back to the NCLT president.
