Overview
- The NCLT approved the repayment plan on August 25 after creditors representing about 80.814% of the committee of creditors voted in favour, ordering ₹6.25 crore for creditors and ₹25 lakh for process costs against admitted claims of ₹22,006.57 crore.
- Dissenting lenders say five entities linked to Chandra’s family cast roughly 61.78% of the decisive votes and should have been disqualified, a claim that the third NCLT member Nilesh Sharma rejected in his 144‑page order.
- Public and private lenders including Canara Bank, Union Bank, LIC Housing Finance and HDFC Bank have moved or signalled appeals to the NCLAT, which listed an urgent hearing for September 1 to hear challenges on vote validity, claim admission and requests for a forensic audit.
- The resolution professional reported disclosed personal assets of about ₹31.79 crore, while Chandra disputes the ₹22,000 crore headline and says many guarantees relate to borrower liabilities that he expects will be reconciled and partly settled.
- The case tests how the IBC treats personal guarantors because a sanctioned plan binds dissenting creditors but an appellate court could overturn approval if votes were wrongly counted or claims were improperly admitted, a ruling that could change how banks use and police guarantees.