Subhash Chandra Gets Relief? NCLT Puts Controversial Insolvency Order On Hold

The tribunal paused its August 25 order after members gave differing views, while a five-member bench will now reconsider the case.

The National Company Law Tribunal has paused its August 25 order involving Essel Group chairman Subhash Chandra. The tribunal also barred him from transferring or selling his assets directly or indirectly. Chandra faces the case as a guarantor. Meanwhile, three members handling the matter gave differing orders. Therefore, a special five-member bench will now reconsider the case.

Different Views Force A Fresh Review

The special bench began hearing the matter on Tuesday. It noticed differences between the earlier orders and found no clear majority opinion. Consequently, the tribunal issued notices to every party involved in the case. The latest development follows an earlier order that offered Chandra a route to settle insolvency proceedings. That settlement involved nearly ₹6.25 crore against claims exceeding ₹22,000 crore.

Why The Earlier Order Faced Questions

The earlier decision raised questions about settling admitted claims with such a small portion of the total amount. Now, the five-member bench will examine the matter again. Until the proceedings continue, the guarantor cannot transfer or sell assets directly or indirectly. Furthermore, the special bench may review the separate opinions before deciding the next course for insolvency proceedings.

Zee Media Shares Face Pressure

Meanwhile, shares of Zee Media Corporation Limited, or ZMCL, have declined during trading. BSE data showed the stock around one percent lower at ₹8.54. During the session, shares also touched an intraday low of ₹8.37. However, the stock opened at ₹8.70 after closing at ₹8.61 on Monday. Therefore, the market movement comes alongside fresh uncertainty around the insolvency proceedings.

Five-Member Bench Holds The Next Move

The tribunal’s latest direction keeps asset transfers restricted while the matter remains under consideration. The five-member bench will now assess the conflicting views from the earlier members. Its review will determine how the insolvency proceedings should move forward. Until then, the disputed August 25 order remains on hold.