Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited Vs Dr Subhash Chandra (NCLT Delhi)
Summary: The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Special Principal Bench, considered the insolvency proceedings arising from Company Petition IB-97/ND/2022 against Dr Subhash Chandra. The petition was an application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The proceedings had generated differing views before the original Division Bench, followed by a reference to a Third Member and subsequently a further reference to the President, NCLT.
The original Division Bench comprising Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj, Member (Judicial), and Smt. Reena Sinha Puri, Member (Technical), had delivered dissenting judgments on 03.09.2025. The difference of opinion was thereafter placed before the then President, NCLT, who referred it to Sh. Nilesh Sharma, Member (Judicial), NCLT Mumbai Bench, as the Third Member on 05.02.2026. The Third Member heard the matter on several occasions and pronounced his judgment on 25.08.2026.
When the Third Member’s order was placed before the concerned Bench for consequential orders on 31.08.2026, the Bench held that no majority view had emerged. It consequently made a fresh reference to the President, NCLT under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The President thereafter constituted the present Special Bench of five Members to consider the issue.
The Special Bench examined the three Members’ respective positions. Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj had approved the repayment plan and observed that dissenting financial creditors who had participated in the voting process could pursue remedies available under law for recovery of their remaining debt. Ms. Reena Sinha Puri had rejected the repayment plan, recording various irregularities concerning the process, including admission of claims and voting.
The Third Member, Sh. Nilesh Sharma, had approved the Repayment Plan by order dated 25.08.2026, subject to exclusion of claims submitted through Mr. Anil Kumar on behalf of 960 individuals and Mr. Sunil Jain on behalf of 300 individuals, with consequential redistribution of the amounts among remaining eligible creditors. He had also held that the approved Repayment Plan would bind all creditors, whether assenting or dissenting, in accordance with Section 115 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The Special Bench concluded that, in view of Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, there was no clear majority view capable of being given effect to. It therefore stayed the Third Member’s order dated 25.08.2026. The Bench additionally directed that the personal guarantor should not alienate any assets, directly or indirectly. Notices were directed to be issued to the parties in all the connected IAs, replies could be filed before the next hearing, and the matter was listed for 23.09.2026 at 10:00 AM.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
1. The Company Petition CP IB-97/ND/2022 was heard by the division bench (Court-II, NCLT, New Delhi) comprising Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj, Member (Judicial) and Smt. Reena Sinha Puri, Member (Technical) and dissenting judgments were delivered on 03.09.2025
2. In view of the difference of opinion between the two members, the matter was placed before the then President, NCLT Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar on 25.09.2025. The then President, NCLT referred the difference of opinion to a third member Sh. Nilesh Sharma, Member (Judicial), NCLT Mumbai Bench on 05.02.2026.
3. The matter was first heard by the third member on 20.02.2026 and thereafter, it was heard on several other occasions. The third Member’s judgment was pronounced on 25.08.2026.
4. The order dated 25.08.2026 was placed before the concerned bench on 31.08.2026 for drawing the consequential order. The concerned bench was constituted on 31.08.2026. The Bench held that no majority view has emerged and reference was made to the President, NCLT. The operative part of the order is reproduced hereunder: –
“All said and done, no majority view has emerged in the matter. In the wake, no order can be passed at this stage. Resultantly, we have no option but to make fresh reference to Hon’ble President in terms of the provisions of Section 419(5) of the Code.”
5. In view of the above, President, NCLT constituted this Special Bench of five Members on 31.08.2026 to consider the issue.
6. A perusal of the orders of the three Members indicates that Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj, Member (Judicial) has approved the repayment plan and observed that the dissenting financial creditors having participated in the voting process can resort to the remedies available to them under the law for recovery of their remaining debt.
7. However, Ms. Reena Sinha Puri Member (Technical) has rejected the repayment plan by holding that there were various irregularities in the process including those relating to the admission of claims and voting.
8. The Third Member Sh. Nilesh Sharma, Member (Judicial), NCLT Mumbai Bench to whom the matter was referred after the difference of opinion, upon consideration of the matter, vide order dated 25.08.2026, has approved the Repayment Plan. However, he has qualified his approval by directing exclusion of the claims submitted through Mr. Anil Kumar on behalf of 960 individuals and Mr. Sunil Jain on behalf of 300 individuals from the final list of creditors and consequential redistribution of the amount allocated to them amongst the remaining eligible creditors. He has also held that the approved Repayment Plan will be binding upon all the creditors, whether assenting or dissenting to the Repayment Plan, in accordance with Section 115 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and shall have all consequences contemplated under the Code. The Third member has thus clearly differed from the view taken by Member (Judicial) Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj on this issue.
9. It is manifest that as per Section 419 (5) of the Companies Act, 2013, there is no clear majority view capable of being given effect to, therefore, the order dated 25.08.2026 of the third member Sh. Nilesh Sharma, Member (Judicial) is stayed. We also direct that the personal guarantor shall not alienate any assets whatsoever either directly or indirectly. Let notice be issued to the parties in all the IAs. Reply, if any, may be filed before the next date of hearing. List on 23.09.2026 at 10:00 AM.
