The legal team of Essel Group Chairman Dr Subhash Chandra told the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Wednesday that a malicious media narrative was manufactured in the last 15 days over Rs 6.5 crore repayment proposal against creditors’ claims of Rs 22,006 crore even though there was no such final NCLT order in effect. The media narrative caused unfair reputational damage to Dr Chandra, the team said.&nbsp;Appearing for Dr Chandra, Senior Advocate Sasmit Patra said the August 25 opinion approving the repayment plan had not crystallised into a final, enforceable NCLT order but led to a media trial that has tarnished Dr Chandra’s reputation across the country.&nbsp;&nbsp;“The fact is that there is no order today standing in this matter. But for the last 15 days, the personal guarantor, Dr Subhash Chandra, has been vilified across this country, saying that only Rs 6.5 crore are being repaid against credit of Rs 22,000 crore,” Patra submitted before the NCLAT coram of Officiating Chairperson Justice Yogesh Khanna and Technical Members Barun Mitra and Ajai Das Mehrotra.&nbsp;The NCLAT observed that it was not passing any order on Patra’s submission and said Dr Chandra could raise his grievance before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), where the insolvency proceedings are pending.&nbsp;<h2>Contests constitution of 5-member NCLT bench</h2>&nbsp;During the hearing, Patra also questioned the constitution of a 5-member NCLT bench to re-evaluate the repayment plan.&nbsp;He argued that Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, read with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), does not empower the tribunal to form such a bench.&nbsp;“The scope of Section 419(5) is very limited. If there is a differing view, then that differing view has to be taken up by another member or other members. It does not empower the NCLT under the IBC or company law to form a five-member Bench,” Patra submitted.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/nclt-case-dr-subhash-chandra-says-claims-not-true-and-inaccurately-represent-facts-over-reports-of-rs-22-000-crore-loan-1787913325091">NCLT case: Dr Subhash Chandra says 'claims not true and inaccurately represent facts' over reports of 'Rs 22,000 crore loan'</a>&nbsp;He also disputed the lenders’ contention that the three NCLT members who considered the repayment plan had completely divergent opinions.&nbsp;&nbsp;Patra said that Judicial Members Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Nilesh Sharma had both favoured approval of the repayment plan and were aligned on the eligibility issue under Section 79 of the IBC, and differed only over the treatment of dissenting creditors.&nbsp;“Both are equally on the same page as far as Section 79 is concerned on eligibility. Therefore, to say all these issues have to be re-litigated is completely wrong,” Patra argued.&nbsp;<h2>Opposes lenders’ bid to withdraw appeals for now</h2>&nbsp;Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the appellant-lenders, initially sought to withdraw the lenders’ appeals with liberty to revive them if necessary. He said the appeals might no longer require immediate consideration since the 5-member NCLT bench had stayed the August 25 opinion and decided to hear the case afresh.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/nclt-case-dr-subhash-chandra-denies-reports-of-rs-22-000-crore-loan-urges-media-to-correct-facts-1787841820299">NCLT case: Dr Subhash Chandra denies reports of Rs 22,000-crore loan, urges media to correct facts</a>&nbsp;Patra opposed the withdrawal of appeals with liberty to revive. He pointed out that the lenders’ appeals were defective because no final order had crystallised out of the August 25 opinion.&nbsp;Following opposition from Dr Chandra’s counsel, Mehta decided not to press the withdrawal and requested that the appeals remain pending. The NCLAT agreed and listed them for October 7, 2026.

Appearing for Dr Chandra, Senior Advocate Sasmit Patra said the August 25 opinion approving the repayment plan had not crystallised into a final, enforceable NCLT order but led to a media trial that has tarnished Dr Chandra’s reputation across the country.

The legal team of Essel Group Chairman Dr Subhash Chandra told the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Wednesday that a malicious media narrative was manufactured in the last 15 days over Rs 6.5 crore repayment proposal against creditors’ claims of Rs 22,006 crore even though there was no such final NCLT order in effect. The media narrative caused unfair reputational damage to Dr Chandra, the team said. Appearing for Dr Chandra, Senior Advocate Sasmit Patra said the August 25 opinion approving the repayment plan had not crystallised into a final, enforceable NCLT order but led to a media trial that has tarnished Dr Chandra’s reputation across the country. “The fact is that there is no order today standing in this matter. But for the last 15 days, the personal guarantor, Dr Subhash Chandra, has been vilified across this country, saying that only Rs 6.5 crore are being repaid against credit of Rs 22,000 crore,” Patra submitted before the NCLAT coram of Officiating Chairperson Justice Yogesh Khanna and Technical Members Barun Mitra and Ajai Das Mehrotra. The NCLAT observed that it was not passing any order on Patra’s submission and said Dr Chandra could raise his grievance before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), where the insolvency proceedings are pending. Contests constitution of 5-member NCLT bench During the hearing, Patra also questioned the constitution of a 5-member NCLT bench to re-evaluate the repayment plan. He argued that Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, read with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), does not empower the tribunal to form such a bench. “The scope of Section 419(5) is very limited. If there is a differing view, then that differing view has to be taken up by another member or other members. It does not empower the NCLT under the IBC or company law to form a five-member Bench,” Patra submitted. Also Read: NCLT case: Dr Subhash Chandra says 'claims not true and inaccurately represent facts' over reports of 'Rs 22,000 crore loan' He also disputed the lenders’ contention that the three NCLT members who considered the repayment plan had completely divergent opinions. Patra said that Judicial Members Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Nilesh Sharma had both favoured approval of the repayment plan and were aligned on the eligibility issue under Section 79 of the IBC, and differed only over the treatment of dissenting creditors. “Both are equally on the same page as far as Section 79 is concerned on eligibility. Therefore, to say all these issues have to be re-litigated is completely wrong,” Patra argued. Opposes lenders’ bid to withdraw appeals for now Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the appellant-lenders, initially sought to withdraw the lenders’ appeals with liberty to revive them if necessary. He said the appeals might no longer require immediate consideration since the 5-member NCLT bench had stayed the August 25 opinion and decided to hear the case afresh. Also Read: NCLT case: Dr Subhash Chandra denies reports of Rs 22,000-crore loan, urges media to correct facts Patra opposed the withdrawal of appeals with liberty to revive. He pointed out that the lenders’ appeals were defective because no final order had crystallised out of the August 25 opinion. Following opposition from Dr Chandra’s counsel, Mehta decided not to press the withdrawal and requested that the appeals remain pending. The NCLAT agreed and listed them for October 7, 2026.

Appearing for Dr Chandra, Senior Advocate Sasmit Patra said the August 25 opinion approving the repayment plan had not crystallised into a final, enforceable NCLT order but led to a media trial that has tarnished Dr Chandra’s reputation across the country.

‘Unfair media trial without order’: Dr Subhash Chandra’s legal team opposes constitution of 5-member NCLT bench

The office of Dr. Subhash Chandra has issued a detailed statement on the settlement order in his personal insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), saying that social media reactions over the past three days have created a “wrong perception” of the matter.&nbsp;Dr. Chandra’s office said the statement intends to explain the financial position of the personal guarantor and the repayment plan prepared during the insolvency proceedings.&nbsp;According to the statement, the total amount disbursed by the lenders listed in the proceedings was approximately Rs 4,808 crore. Borrowers had repaid Rs 3,803 crore, leaving an outstanding balance of about Rs 998 crore. However, claims filed against the personal guarantor amounted to Rs 5,311 crore.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/nclt-case-dr-subhash-chandra-denies-reports-of-rs-22-000-crore-loan-urges-media-to-correct-facts-1787841820299">NCLT case: Dr Subhash Chandra denies reports of Rs 22,000-crore loan, urges media to correct facts</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">I have seen &amp; observed social media posts since past 3 days on the issue. Some of the posts also included hashtags like <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/PaiseVapasKaro?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PaiseVapasKaro</a>.There has been a wrong perception &amp; understanding about the matter. Hence,I am giving a detailed account of the entire matter. <a href="https://t.co/UbL5xXFq6L">pic.twitter.com/UbL5xXFq6L</a>&mdash; Subhash Chandra (@subhashchandra) <a href="https://x.com/subhashchandra/status/2094048435175608384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 30, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

&nbsp;&nbsp;According to the statement, Dr Chandra signed personal guarantees aggregating ₹22,000 crore. Of these, guarantees worth around ₹4,800 crore were signed when funds were borrowed by the respective entities. The remaining guarantees, it said, were signed after defaults had occurred.The statement emphasised that the underlying loans were taken by various companies and not by Dr Chandra in his personal capacity and it presented a lender-wise account of the claims submitted in the personal insolvency proceedings initiated by Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

According to the figures shared by Dr Chandra’s office, lenders covered in the statement had collectively disbursed ₹4,808 crore to the borrowing entities. Of this, the borrowers had repaid ₹3,803 crore, leaving a balance of ₹998 crore.However, claims totalling ₹5,311 crore were filed against Dr Chandra as the personal guarantor. Following the settlement or payment of claims amounting to ₹1,049 crore, the remaining claims stood at ₹4,262 crore, the statement said.

&nbsp;&nbsp;Dr Chandra maintained that the difference between the amount described as payable and the claims submitted by lenders would need to be reconciled between the lenders and the respective borrowing entities.He further said he had discussed the matter with the borrowers and had received assurances that the remaining ₹4,262 crore would be settled after reconciliation with the lenders.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/nclt-case-dr-subhash-chandra-says-claims-not-true-and-inaccurately-represent-facts-over-reports-of-rs-22-000-crore-loan-1787913325091">NCLT case: Dr Subhash Chandra says 'claims not true and inaccurately represent facts' over reports of 'Rs 22,000 crore loan'</a>&nbsp;Dr Chandra’s office added that the borrowing entities had also raised money from foreign funds, domestic funds, non-banking financial companies and corporates. It claimed that most of these borrowings had either been settled or were in the process of being settled.Dr Chandra urged lenders to engage directly with the borrowing entities, reconcile the outstanding accounts and recover the amounts due from them&nbsp;The statement came after posts circulated online, some carrying hashtags such as #PaiseVapasKaro and #PaisaWapasKaro.&nbsp;The statement added that other borrowings from foreign funds, domestic funds, NBFCs and corporates were also being settled or were backed by adequate assets.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Essel Group Chairman Dr. Subhash Chandra (<a href="https://x.com/subhashchandra?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@subhashchandra</a>) announces an Instagram Live on Monday, August 31, from 9 am onwards, where he will directly address the recent NCLT proceedings and his personal insolvency case<a href="https://x.com/hashtag/SubhashChandraLive?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SubhashChandraLive</a> <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/Askmeanything?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Askmeanything</a> <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/AskMeDirectly?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AskMeDirectly</a>… <a href="https://t.co/5k3IgtuW00">pic.twitter.com/5k3IgtuW00</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://x.com/WIONews/status/2093966232399782332?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 30, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Dr. Chandra also announced an Instagram Live on Monday, August 31, from 9 am onwards, where he will directly address the recent NCLT proceedings and his personal insolvency case.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

The statement said that the difference between the amount described as payable and the claims submitted by lenders would need to be reconciled. Dr Chandra discussed with the borrowers and received assurances that the remaining ₹4,262 crore would be settled after reconciliation with lenders.

The office of Dr. Subhash Chandra has issued a detailed statement on the settlement order in his personal insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), saying that social media reactions over the past three days have created a “wrong perception” of the matter. Dr. Chandra’s office said the statement intends to explain the financial position of the personal guarantor and the repayment plan prepared during the insolvency proceedings. According to the statement, the total amount disbursed by the lenders listed in the proceedings was approximately Rs 4,808 crore. Borrowers had repaid Rs 3,803 crore, leaving an outstanding balance of about Rs 998 crore. However, claims filed against the personal guarantor amounted to Rs 5,311 crore. Also Read: NCLT case: Dr Subhash Chandra denies reports of Rs 22,000-crore loan, urges media to correct facts

The statement said that the difference between the amount described as payable and the claims submitted by lenders would need to be reconciled. Dr Chandra discussed with the borrowers and received assurances that the remaining ₹4,262 crore would be settled after reconciliation with lenders.

Borrowers will settle ₹4,262 crore after reconciliation: Dr Subhash Chandra

Essel Group Chairman Dr Subhash Chandra on Thursday disputed several figures and claims that have appeared in certain media reports over an NCLT loan-settlement order. He said in a statement that several reports suggesting that he had personally borrowed money or had guaranteed loans worth Rs 22,000 crore were incorrect, and urged media outlets to present the facts accurately.&nbsp;Dr Chandra issued an official statement saying that he is issuing a press release in the interest of all stakeholders. “I have to state that certain vested media houses are spreading wrong information about my personal insolvency matter in NCLT. I urge all media platforms to publish the facts and to remove any misinformation that is incorrectly interpreted from the Court order.”&nbsp;Dr Chandra said that he had not borrowed any money from any lender and was involved in the matter only in his capacity as a personal guarantor for borrowing entities associated with the Essel Group. He said that the total claims against him in the personal insolvency proceedings, filed by lenders objecting to the repayment plan, stood at Rs 3,992 crore, not Rs 22,000 crore as suggested in some reports.&nbsp;Besides, Rs 620 crore of the Rs 3,992 crore claims has already been settled, he said, adding that the borrowing entities have offered a further settlement of Rs 1,063 crore to the lenders concerned.&nbsp;Dr Chandra said that the borrowing entities for which he had provided personal guarantees had repaid nearly Rs 43,000 crore against total company dues of around Rs 45,000 crore as of January 24, 2019.&nbsp;&nbsp;The borrowing entities have assured that they will settle any remaining amount.&nbsp;He also rejected reports regarding his personal net worth, saying that the market capitalisation of Essel Group companies had been incorrectly treated as his individual wealth.&nbsp;&nbsp;“Certain vested media houses are spreading wrong information about my personal insolvency matter in NCLT,” he said.&nbsp;He said the amounts quoted in reports were taken from documents showing claims filed in the case.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>Rs 43,000 crore repaid by borrowing companies</h2>&nbsp;He said the companies for which he had given personal guarantees had total outstanding borrowings of around Rs 45,000 crore as of January 24, 2019.“Out of this, they have returned close to Rs.43000 crores since that day,” Dr Chandra said.&nbsp;&nbsp;Dr Chandra also referred to his declaration of assets made in Parliament in 2016, when he had declared total assets worth Rs 39.08 crore. He questioned how a bank could have accepted a personal net worth of Rs 45,888 crore in 2017 when his parliamentary declaration a year earlier had shown assets worth Rs 39.08 crore.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Dr Subhash Chandra said he had not borrowed money from any lender and was involved in the matter only in his capacity as a personal guarantor for borrowing entities associated with the Essel Group. He said that the total claims against him  stood at Rs 3,992 crore, not Rs 22,000 crore.

Essel Group Chairman Dr Subhash Chandra on Thursday disputed several figures and claims that have appeared in certain media reports over an NCLT loan-settlement order. He said in a statement that several reports suggesting that he had personally borrowed money or had guaranteed loans worth Rs 22,000 crore were incorrect, and urged media outlets to present the facts accurately. Dr Chandra issued an official statement saying that he is issuing a press release in the interest of all stakeholders. “I have to state that certain vested media houses are spreading wrong information about my personal insolvency matter in NCLT. I urge all media platforms to publish the facts and to remove any misinformation that is incorrectly interpreted from the Court order.” Dr Chandra said that he had not borrowed any money from any lender and was involved in the matter only in his capacity as a personal guarantor for borrowing entities associated with the Essel Group. He said that the total claims against him in the personal insolvency proceedings, filed by lenders objecting to the repayment plan, stood at Rs 3,992 crore, not Rs 22,000 crore as suggested in some reports. Besides, Rs 620 crore of the Rs 3,992 crore claims has already been settled, he said, adding that the borrowing entities have offered a further settlement of Rs 1,063 crore to the lenders concerned. Dr Chandra said that the borrowing entities for which he had provided personal guarantees had repaid nearly Rs 43,000 crore against total company dues of around Rs 45,000 crore as of January 24, 2019. The borrowing entities have assured that they will settle any remaining amount. He also rejected reports regarding his personal net worth, saying that the market capitalisation of Essel Group companies had been incorrectly treated as his individual wealth. “Certain vested media houses are spreading wrong information about my personal insolvency matter in NCLT,” he said. He said the amounts quoted in reports were taken from documents showing claims filed in the case. Rs 43,000 crore repaid by borrowing companies He said the companies for which he had given personal guarantees had total outstanding borrowings of around Rs 45,000 crore as of January 24, 2019. “Out of this, they have returned close to Rs.43000 crores since that day,” Dr Chandra said. Dr Chandra also referred to his declaration of assets made in Parliament in 2016, when he had declared total assets worth Rs 39.08 crore. He questioned how a bank could have accepted a personal net worth of Rs 45,888 crore in 2017 when his parliamentary declaration a year earlier had shown assets worth Rs 39.08 crore.

Dr Subhash Chandra said he had not borrowed money from any lender and was involved in the matter only in his capacity as a personal guarantor for borrowing entities associated with the Essel Group. He said that the total claims against him &nbsp;stood at Rs 3,992 crore, not Rs 22,000 crore.

NCLT case: Dr Subhash Chandra denies reports of Rs 22,000-crore loan, urges media to correct facts

An Essel Group company, Konti Infrapower and Multiventures, has moved the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against Kotak Asset Management Company (AMC) over the asset management company’s failure to honour certain contractual obligations. Claiming dues to the tune of Rs 12.99 crore, the Essel Group entity has stated that Kotak AMC, as a corporate debtor, is yet to meet its financial obligations under an agreement dated April 6, 2019.“As the Corporate Debtor failed and neglected to honour its contractual obligations as given under Agreement dated 6th April 2019, the Applicant vide demand notice dated 19 February 2025, inter-alia called once again upon the Corporate Debtor to release the due amounts as a pro-tem measure. Till date, the Financial Creditor has not received payment from the Corporate Debtor,” reads the plea by Konti Infrapower and Multiventures.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>What is the plea about?</h2>&nbsp;The matter is related to the Rs 20-crore non-convertible debentures (NCDs) subscribed by Kotak AMC of Essel Group entities on the pledge of listed equity shares of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (ZEEL), which in turn was the underlying security for the NCDs.The NCDs were sold by Kotak AMC to certain other investors in February 2019, and the advancement of Rs 12.99 crore was in relation to this part only. &nbsp;According to Konti Infrapower and Multiventures’ plea, certain obligations arose due to the NCD issue, for which, a sum of Rs 12.99 crore was advanced to Kotak AMC. Under the agreement, the Kotak group company was required to repay the amount to Konti Infrapower after the completion of the market regulator SEBI’s routine annual inspection. SEBI was due to issue its report after completing the routine annual inspection of Kotak AMC from April 2019 to March 2020. Further, the amounts advanced were to be refunded after unit holders of Kotak AMC were paid the amounts under the underlying NCDs. &nbsp;Konti Infrapower and Multiventures said it wrote two letters to Kotak AMC on July 6, 2022, for the release of the amounts as per the agreement, to which Kotak AMC replied on July 28, 2022, that the inspection of SEBI was not complete.&nbsp; &nbsp;According to the Essel Group company, SEBI’s inspection of Kotak AMC, which is the trigger point for the refund of its money, has been completed, and a report dated 28 March, 2023, has been prepared. Also, Kotak AMC liquidated its NCDs and repaid the unitholders. &nbsp;The next hearing in the matter is due on July 10. At the time of publishing this report, an email sent to Kotak AMC remained unanswered.

An Essel Group company has moved the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against Kotak Asset Management Company, claiming dues of Rs 12.99 crore, citing the corporate debtor's failure to honour its contractual obligations in an agreement dated April 6, 2019.

An Essel Group company, Konti Infrapower and Multiventures, has moved the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against Kotak Asset Management Company (AMC) over the asset management company’s failure to honour certain contractual obligations. Claiming dues to the tune of Rs 12.99 crore, the Essel Group entity has stated that Kotak AMC, as a corporate debtor, is yet to meet its financial obligations under an agreement dated April 6, 2019. “As the Corporate Debtor failed and neglected to honour its contractual obligations as given under Agreement dated 6th April 2019, the Applicant vide demand notice dated 19 February 2025, inter-alia called once again upon the Corporate Debtor to release the due amounts as a pro-tem measure. Till date, the Financial Creditor has not received payment from the Corporate Debtor,” reads the plea by Konti Infrapower and Multiventures. What is the plea about? The matter is related to the Rs 20-crore non-convertible debentures (NCDs) subscribed by Kotak AMC of Essel Group entities on the pledge of listed equity shares of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (ZEEL), which in turn was the underlying security for the NCDs. The NCDs were sold by Kotak AMC to certain other investors in February 2019, and the advancement of Rs 12.99 crore was in relation to this part only. According to Konti Infrapower and Multiventures’ plea, certain obligations arose due to the NCD issue, for which, a sum of Rs 12.99 crore was advanced to Kotak AMC. Under the agreement, the Kotak group company was required to repay the amount to Konti Infrapower after the completion of the market regulator SEBI’s routine annual inspection. SEBI was due to issue its report after completing the routine annual inspection of Kotak AMC from April 2019 to March 2020. Further, the amounts advanced were to be refunded after unit holders of Kotak AMC were paid the amounts under the underlying NCDs. Konti Infrapower and Multiventures said it wrote two letters to Kotak AMC on July 6, 2022, for the release of the amounts as per the agreement, to which Kotak AMC replied on July 28, 2022, that the inspection of SEBI was not complete. According to the Essel Group company, SEBI’s inspection of Kotak AMC, which is the trigger point for the refund of its money, has been completed, and a report dated 28 March, 2023, has been prepared. Also, Kotak AMC liquidated its NCDs and repaid the unitholders. The next hearing in the matter is due on July 10. At the time of publishing this report, an email sent to Kotak AMC remained unanswered.

An Essel Group company has moved the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against Kotak Asset Management Company, claiming dues of Rs 12.99 crore, citing the corporate debtor's failure to honour its contractual obligations in an agreement dated April 6, 2019.

Essel Group slams dishonest debtor Kotak AMC, drags it to NCLT for dishonouring contractual obligations

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted to BCCI's petition seeking insolvency proceedings against troubled ed-tech firm Byju's.

Byju's had a sponsorship contract with BCCI for the Indian cricket team. The petition, filed last year, aims to initiate insolvency proceedings against Byju's over alleged unpaid dues of $18 million outstanding dues.&nbsp;

Reports suggest that the BCCI's claim represents the largest among Byju's creditors. However, several other companies have also raised multiple claims. Surfer Technologies is seeking over $2.3&nbsp;million, while Cogent E-services has filed for more than $1.7&nbsp;million. The total amount due exceeds $23 million.

In 2022, Byju's had collaborated with the BCCI, the International Cricket Council (ICC), and FIFA. While these partnerships were slated to be renewed in 2023, the company declared its intention to discontinue these collaborations.

This comes as Byju's is facing an investor exodus. Tech investor Prosus wrote off its 9.6 per cent stake in the firm Byju's during the financial year 2024. Major investors, including Peak XV partner, left the board over disagreements and lack of compliance practices. The company's valuation has dramatically slumped from $22 billion to zero.

This follows a year-long probe by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs that revealed governance shortcomings as a major contributor to Byju's mounting losses.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted to BCCI's petition seeking insolvency proceedings against troubled ed-tech firm Byju's. Byju's had a sponsorship contract with BCCI for the Indian cricket team.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted to BCCI's petition seeking insolvency proceedings against troubled ed-tech firm Byju's. Byju's had a sponsorship contract with BCCI for the Indian cricket team. The petition, filed last year, aims to initiate insolvency proceedings against Byju's over alleged unpaid dues of $18 million outstanding dues. Reports suggest that the BCCI's claim represents the largest among Byju's creditors. However, several other companies have also raised multiple claims. Surfer Technologies is seeking over $2.3 million, while Cogent E-services has filed for more than $1.7 million. The total amount due exceeds $23 million. In 2022, Byju's had collaborated with the BCCI, the International Cricket Council (ICC), and FIFA. While these partnerships were slated to be renewed in 2023, the company declared its intention to discontinue these collaborations. This comes as Byju's is facing an investor exodus. Tech investor Prosus wrote off its 9.6 per cent stake in the firm Byju's during the financial year 2024. Major investors, including Peak XV partner, left the board over disagreements and lack of compliance practices. The company's valuation has dramatically slumped from $22 billion to zero. This follows a year-long probe by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs that revealed governance shortcomings as a major contributor to Byju's mounting losses.

BCCI drags Byju's to bankruptcy proceedings

A big boost to the media behemoth Zee Entertainment Limited India's as the company tribunal the NCLT has approved the firm's merger with an Indian unit of Sony. The decision comes a month after the NCLT to reserved its order on the deal. The Zee Entertainment-Sony merger was announced in December 2021 but it has been delayed due to various creditors raising objections.

Sony-Zee Entertainment merger: Fund infusion to boost new entity

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in its order on Thursday has said that the National Company Law Tribunal has not given sufficient time to Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (ZEEL) to file its reply on Invesco plea. NCLAT further said that not giving sufficient time to ZEEL to file a reply is against the principles of natural justice.

ZEEL should get sufficient time to file reply- NCLAT tells NCLT

India Watch, 21st June 2019

State Bank of India approached the Mumbai bench of National Company Law Tribunal on Tuesday against Jet Airways, and its petition may be heard on Wednesday.

India Watch: Jet Airways lands in bankruptcy court

Jet Airways' shares faced massive drubbing Tuesday and tumbled nearly 41 per cent after State Bank of India-led consortium of lenders decided to send the grounded airline to the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/banks-vote-to-send-jet-airways-for-bankruptcy-to-recover-dues-228085">National Company Law Tribunal</a>.

The scrip plummeted 40.78 per cent to close at Rs 40.45 on the BSE. During the day, it tanked 52.78 per cent to hit an all-time low of Rs 32.25.

On the National Stock Exchange (NSE), shares plunged 40.78 per cent to close at Rs 40.50 apiece. During the day, it dropped 53.72 per cent to a record low of Rs 31.65.

On the traded volume front, 60.53 lakh shares of the company were traded on the BSE and over four crore shares on the NSE during the day.

This the 12th consecutive trading day fall for Jet Airways and the scrip has plunged over 73 per cent during this time, wiping out Rs 1,253.5 crore from its market valuation, on the BSE.

Harried bankers Monday decided against an outright sale of Jet Airways to the lone bidder and instead voted to send it for bankruptcy to recover their Rs 8,000 crore dues.

The once-largest private sector airline, started over 25 years ago, stopped flying in April after it ran out of cash and the unpaid lessors took away most of its 100-odd operational aircraft.

After a meeting of the 26 lenders on Monday, SBI in a statement said that "after due deliberations, the lenders have decided to seek resolution for Jet Airways under the bankruptcy code since only a conditional bid was received".

The decision of the lenders to seek bankruptcy process through the NCLT came exactly two months after the airline stopped flying on April 17 after being on the fringe since last July.

The scrip has also been on a backfoot following announcement that stock exchanges will impose restrictions on trading in Jet Airways' shares from June 28 as part of preventive surveillance measures to curb excessive volatility, according to a circular issued last week. 
&nbsp;

Jet Airways' shares faced massive drubbing Tuesday and tumbled nearly 41 per cent after State Bank of India-led consortium of lenders decided to send the grounded airline to the National Company Law Tribunal.

Jet Airways' shares faced massive drubbing Tuesday and tumbled nearly 41 per cent after State Bank of India-led consortium of lenders decided to send the grounded airline to the National Company Law Tribunal. The scrip plummeted 40.78 per cent to close at Rs 40.45 on the BSE. During the day, it tanked 52.78 per cent to hit an all-time low of Rs 32.25. On the National Stock Exchange (NSE), shares plunged 40.78 per cent to close at Rs 40.50 apiece. During the day, it dropped 53.72 per cent to a record low of Rs 31.65. On the traded volume front, 60.53 lakh shares of the company were traded on the BSE and over four crore shares on the NSE during the day. This the 12th consecutive trading day fall for Jet Airways and the scrip has plunged over 73 per cent during this time, wiping out Rs 1,253.5 crore from its market valuation, on the BSE. Harried bankers Monday decided against an outright sale of Jet Airways to the lone bidder and instead voted to send it for bankruptcy to recover their Rs 8,000 crore dues. The once-largest private sector airline, started over 25 years ago, stopped flying in April after it ran out of cash and the unpaid lessors took away most of its 100-odd operational aircraft. After a meeting of the 26 lenders on Monday, SBI in a statement said that "after due deliberations, the lenders have decided to seek resolution for Jet Airways under the bankruptcy code since only a conditional bid was received". The decision of the lenders to seek bankruptcy process through the NCLT came exactly two months after the airline stopped flying on April 17 after being on the fringe since last July. The scrip has also been on a backfoot following announcement that stock exchanges will impose restrictions on trading in Jet Airways' shares from June 28 as part of preventive surveillance measures to curb excessive volatility, according to a circular issued last week.

Jet Airways shares plummet 41% as company lands in bankruptcy court

Harried bankers Monday decided against <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/jet-airways-shares-continue-to-face-massive-selling-pressure-tumble-over-18-per-cent-227881">an outright sale of Jet Airways</a> to the lone bidder, instead voted to send it for bankruptcy to recover their Rs 8,000 crore dues.

The once largest private sector airline started over 25 years ago by airline-ticketing-agent-turned-entrepreneur Naresh Goyal, stopped flying on April 17 after it ran out of cash and the unpaid lessors took away most of its 100-odd operational airplanes.

The decision of the lenders to seek bankruptcy process through the NCLT comes exactly two months after the airline stopped flying on April 17, after being on the fringe since last July.

The nascent bankruptcy process has been fraught with inordinate delays with only a fraction of the cases have been resolved within the timeline, while the asset in on the books of the once the largest airliner are just fraction of its dues which run into over Rs 36,000 crore.

After a meeting of the 26 lenders here Monday, SBI in a statement said, "after due deliberations, the lenders have decided to seek resolution for Jet Airways under the bankruptcy code since only a conditional bid was received".

Watch: Jet Airways lenders decide to take airline to NCLT

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/jet-airways-lenders-decide-to-take-airline-to-nclt-228045/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The statement further said the move was necessitated as the prospective investor wants some Sebi exemptions for a possible deal which can be worked out better under the bankruptcy laws.

The Etihad-Hinduja consortium had reportedly shown interest but not given a concrete proposal yet, forcing the lenders to take the NCLT plunge as they have asked for a large haircut from the lenders.

The decision also comes amidst reports of Goyal being put on a lookout notice by federal law enforcement agencies and also launching a money-laundering probe against him.

The grounding of Jet Airways, which was the largest full-service carrier left over 23,000 employees unpaid for months in the lurch, and also sent airfares soaring by over 40 per cent on average. And even after two months, prices are yet to normalise.

As the cash crisis worsened and lenders refused any lifeline to the airline under promoter chairman Goyal, who was forced to give up control on March 25, when lenders had in principle agreed to infuse Rs 1,500 crore for equity. But that never materialised, as bankers were chary of the fate of the February 12 circular of the RBI which was being heard at the Supreme Court.

Finally, on April 2, the apex court struck down the contentious circular, sealing the bank-led process to resolve the crisis at the airline.

The Abu Dhabi carrier Etihad has been holding 24 per cent in the airline since November 2013 after investing Rs 2,062 crore but is not interested in increasing the stake further or having management control of the airline.

With the March 25 resolution, Etihad's 24 per cent stake was halved and it lost its board representation as well along with Goyal and his wife Anita.

Anyway, the airline remains an asset only as a legal entity as its liabilities far outweigh the negligible assets. While its liabilities and debt are over Rs 36,000 crore, the only key assets are its two Heathrow airport slots and the minority stake in its loyalty programme called JPMiles.

Also, most of its domestic airport slots have been given away to other airlines by the government and so are some of its slots at some key international airports.

On the aeroplane assets side, Jet had only 16 on its book as the rest of its 123 fleet were on lease and most of them have been de-registered and taken away by the foreign lessors already.

The Jet shares are at multiyear lows and plunged 17 per cent Monday after exchanges last week put curbs on trading in its stock on June 12. In the past three trading sessions alone, the stock lost as much as 55 per cent of its value.

Monday the stock dived close to 17 per cent to close Rs 68.30 on the BSE with a market cap of just under Rs 776 crore, whose benchmark also plunged 1.25 per cent.

When banks converted a part of their debt into equity when the stock was trading over Rs 250 apiece. The conversion price was fixed at a nominal Re 1, though.

With bankers now opting for NCLT, the fate of the previous petitions from two operational creditors seeking bankruptcy could be expedited.

On June 10, two operational creditors--Shaman Wheels and Gaggar Enterprises-- had taken the airline to the Mumbai bench of the NCLT seeking bankruptcy and on June 13 the tribunal, which is yet to admit the petitions put off the matter for further hearing to June 20.

The airline owes Rs 8.74 crore to Shaman Wheels and Rs 53 lakh to Gaggar Enterprises.

Jet Airways owes over Rs 8,000 crore to a consortium of 26 banks led by the State Bank, which now run the airline, while it has a much larger debt pile by way of accumulated losses to the tune of Rs 13,000 crore and vendor dues of over Rs 10,000 crore and salary dues of over Rs 3,000 crore.

It can be noted that on April 8 through 12, bankers had put the airline on sale-offering 33 to 75 per cent stake-of which the lenders own 51 per cent now-to interested parties and received four preliminary bids.

The bids came in from two private equity players-TPG and Indigo Partners and also from Etihad Airways and the national sovereign wealth fund NIIF. But none of them chose to submit financial bids. The lenders had initially put May 30 deadline to complete the sale process.

In the run-up to the crisis, the Tatas, which already run two airlines--the full-service Vistara and the no-frills carrier AirAsia India with eponymous Malaysian group--had shown interest to take it over but since Goyal insisted on staying back as chairman the proposal did not materialise.

The same also reportedly led to the above four bidders to force the lenders to reject his bid piggy-ridding on a foreign investor.&nbsp;

Harried bankers Monday decided against an outright sale of Jet Airways to the lone bidder, instead voted to send it for bankruptcy to recover their Rs 8,000 crore dues.

Harried bankers Monday decided against an outright sale of Jet Airways to the lone bidder, instead voted to send it for bankruptcy to recover their Rs 8,000 crore dues. The once largest private sector airline started over 25 years ago by airline-ticketing-agent-turned-entrepreneur Naresh Goyal, stopped flying on April 17 after it ran out of cash and the unpaid lessors took away most of its 100-odd operational airplanes. The decision of the lenders to seek bankruptcy process through the NCLT comes exactly two months after the airline stopped flying on April 17, after being on the fringe since last July. The nascent bankruptcy process has been fraught with inordinate delays with only a fraction of the cases have been resolved within the timeline, while the asset in on the books of the once the largest airliner are just fraction of its dues which run into over Rs 36,000 crore. After a meeting of the 26 lenders here Monday, SBI in a statement said, "after due deliberations, the lenders have decided to seek resolution for Jet Airways under the bankruptcy code since only a conditional bid was received". Watch: Jet Airways lenders decide to take airline to NCLT The statement further said the move was necessitated as the prospective investor wants some Sebi exemptions for a possible deal which can be worked out better under the bankruptcy laws. The Etihad-Hinduja consortium had reportedly shown interest but not given a concrete proposal yet, forcing the lenders to take the NCLT plunge as they have asked for a large haircut from the lenders. The decision also comes amidst reports of Goyal being put on a lookout notice by federal law enforcement agencies and also launching a money-laundering probe against him. The grounding of Jet Airways, which was the largest full-service carrier left over 23,000 employees unpaid for months in the lurch, and also sent airfares soaring by over 40 per cent on average. And even after two months, prices are yet to normalise. As the cash crisis worsened and lenders refused any lifeline to the airline under promoter chairman Goyal, who was forced to give up control on March 25, when lenders had in principle agreed to infuse Rs 1,500 crore for equity. But that never materialised, as bankers were chary of the fate of the February 12 circular of the RBI which was being heard at the Supreme Court. Finally, on April 2, the apex court struck down the contentious circular, sealing the bank-led process to resolve the crisis at the airline. The Abu Dhabi carrier Etihad has been holding 24 per cent in the airline since November 2013 after investing Rs 2,062 crore but is not interested in increasing the stake further or having management control of the airline. With the March 25 resolution, Etihad's 24 per cent stake was halved and it lost its board representation as well along with Goyal and his wife Anita. Anyway, the airline remains an asset only as a legal entity as its liabilities far outweigh the negligible assets. While its liabilities and debt are over Rs 36,000 crore, the only key assets are its two Heathrow airport slots and the minority stake in its loyalty programme called JPMiles. Also, most of its domestic airport slots have been given away to other airlines by the government and so are some of its slots at some key international airports. On the aeroplane assets side, Jet had only 16 on its book as the rest of its 123 fleet were on lease and most of them have been de-registered and taken away by the foreign lessors already. The Jet shares are at multiyear lows and plunged 17 per cent Monday after exchanges last week put curbs on trading in its stock on June 12. In the past three trading sessions alone, the stock lost as much as 55 per cent of its value. Monday the stock dived close to 17 per cent to close Rs 68.30 on the BSE with a market cap of just under Rs 776 crore, whose benchmark also plunged 1.25 per cent. When banks converted a part of their debt into equity when the stock was trading over Rs 250 apiece. The conversion price was fixed at a nominal Re 1, though. With bankers now opting for NCLT, the fate of the previous petitions from two operational creditors seeking bankruptcy could be expedited. On June 10, two operational creditors--Shaman Wheels and Gaggar Enterprises-- had taken the airline to the Mumbai bench of the NCLT seeking bankruptcy and on June 13 the tribunal, which is yet to admit the petitions put off the matter for further hearing to June 20. The airline owes Rs 8.74 crore to Shaman Wheels and Rs 53 lakh to Gaggar Enterprises. Jet Airways owes over Rs 8,000 crore to a consortium of 26 banks led by the State Bank, which now run the airline, while it has a much larger debt pile by way of accumulated losses to the tune of Rs 13,000 crore and vendor dues of over Rs 10,000 crore and salary dues of over Rs 3,000 crore. It can be noted that on April 8 through 12, bankers had put the airline on sale-offering 33 to 75 per cent stake-of which the lenders own 51 per cent now-to interested parties and received four preliminary bids. The bids came in from two private equity players-TPG and Indigo Partners and also from Etihad Airways and the national sovereign wealth fund NIIF. But none of them chose to submit financial bids. The lenders had initially put May 30 deadline to complete the sale process. In the run-up to the crisis, the Tatas, which already run two airlines--the full-service Vistara and the no-frills carrier AirAsia India with eponymous Malaysian group--had shown interest to take it over but since Goyal insisted on staying back as chairman the proposal did not materialise. The same also reportedly led to the above four bidders to force the lenders to reject his bid piggy-ridding on a foreign investor.

Banks vote to send Jet Airways for bankruptcy to recover dues

Lenders of the embattled Jet Airways airline have decided to take it to National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Jet Airways lenders decide to take airline to NCLT

Telecom operator Aircel on Wednesday said it has filed for bankruptcy as the company has been facing &quot;troubled times&quot; in &quot;highly financially stressed&quot; industry.

In a statement, Aircel said that intense competition following the disruptive entry of a new player, legal and regulatory challenges, high level of unsustainable debt and increased losses had together caused significant &quot;negative business and reputational impact&quot; on the company.

&quot;The Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor today announced that they have filed an application under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 for undertaking Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process for the respective companies: Aircel Cellular, Dishnet Wireless, Aircel Ltd,&quot; the the statement said.

Sources said that the filing was made in National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai.

The company statement also noted that efforts to merge wireless business with another operator did not yield any results and had ultimately lapsed in September 2017.

&quot;Post detailed discussions with the financial lenders and shareholders, the company could not reach consensus with respect to restructuring of its debt and funding. Despite these discussions and the invoking of a Strategic Debt Restructuring scheme in January 2018...No agreement could be reached,&quot; Aircel said.

The company also said it believes that in the current circumstances, resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is an &quot;appropriate recourse&quot;.

&quot;The Company would like to emphasise that CIRP is not a proceeding for liquidation, rather is a process to find best possible resolution for the current situation and that would be in the best interest of everyone (vendors, distributors, employees, etc) to protect and preserve the value of the company and manage the operations,&quot; it added.

Aircel said it will strive to provide uninterrupted service connectivity to its customers and sought their support in the &quot;current difficult period&quot;.

Sources said that the filing was made in National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai.

Telecom operator Aircel on Wednesday said it has filed for bankruptcy as the company has been facing "troubled times" in "highly financially stressed" industry. In a statement, Aircel said that intense competition following the disruptive entry of a new player, legal and regulatory challenges, high level of unsustainable debt and increased losses had together caused significant "negative business and reputational impact" on the company. "The Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor today announced that they have filed an application under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 for undertaking Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process for the respective companies: Aircel Cellular, Dishnet Wireless, Aircel Ltd," the the statement said. Sources said that the filing was made in National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai. The company statement also noted that efforts to merge wireless business with another operator did not yield any results and had ultimately lapsed in September 2017. "Post detailed discussions with the financial lenders and shareholders, the company could not reach consensus with respect to restructuring of its debt and funding. Despite these discussions and the invoking of a Strategic Debt Restructuring scheme in January 2018...No agreement could be reached," Aircel said. The company also said it believes that in the current circumstances, resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is an "appropriate recourse". "The Company would like to emphasise that CIRP is not a proceeding for liquidation, rather is a process to find best possible resolution for the current situation and that would be in the best interest of everyone (vendors, distributors, employees, etc) to protect and preserve the value of the company and manage the operations," it added. Aircel said it will strive to provide uninterrupted service connectivity to its customers and sought their support in the "current difficult period".

Aircel files for bankruptcy; cites intense competition, unsustainable debt

The Supreme Court has extended the deadline for realty major Jaypee Group till January 25 to deposit Rs 125 crore in pursuance of a direction aimed at protecting the interests of hassled home buyers.

The court also warned Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL), the holding company, that non-compliance of its order would make it liable for contempt of court.

Jaiprakash Associate Limited had on Thursday deposited Rs 150 crore in the Supreme Court registry and sought extension of time to deposit remaining Rs 125 crore.

The court hd on November 22 accepted a demand draft of Rs 275 crore submitted by the real estate firm and directed it to pay another two tranches of Rs 150 crore and Rs 125 crore respectively by December 14 and 31.

Earlier, the court had directed 13 directors of JAL not to alienate their personal properties.

The top court had also made it clear that it was granting &quot;indulgence&quot; to allow the firm to deposit Rs 2,000 crore in instalments as the interest of homebuyers was &quot;paramount&quot;.

The JAL directors had filed affidavits giving details of their personal assets and they are now required to appear again on January 10.

The apex court, on November 13, had also restrained the managing director and the directors of Jaypee Infratech Ltd from travelling abroad without prior permission.

The court had asked Jaypee Infratech to hand over the records to the interim resolution professional (IRP) to draft a resolution plan indicating protection of interests of over 32,000 hassled home buyers and creditors.

It had also stayed any proceedings instituted against Jaypee Infratech for any purpose in any forum like the consumer commission, as the IRP has been given control of the company&#39;s management.

Homebuyers including one Chitra Sharma, through lawyer Ashwarya Sinha, had moved the apex court saying around 32,000 people had booked their flats and are now paying installments.

The top court had on September 4 stayed insolvency proceedings against the real estate firm at National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Flat buyers, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016, do not fall in the category of secured creditors like banks and hence they can get back their money only if something is left after repaying the secured and operational creditors, Sharma, in her plea, said.

Hundreds of home buyers have been left in the lurch after the NCLT, on August 10, admitted the IDBI Bank&#39;s plea to initiate insolvency proceedings against the debt-ridden realty company for defaulting on a Rs 526 crore loan, the plea said.

Jaiprakash Associate Limited had on Thursday deposited Rs 150 crore in the Supreme Court registry and sought extension of time to deposit remaining Rs 125 crore.

The Supreme Court has extended the deadline for realty major Jaypee Group till January 25 to deposit Rs 125 crore in pursuance of a direction aimed at protecting the interests of hassled home buyers. The court also warned Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL), the holding company, that non-compliance of its order would make it liable for contempt of court. Jaiprakash Associate Limited had on Thursday deposited Rs 150 crore in the Supreme Court registry and sought extension of time to deposit remaining Rs 125 crore. The court hd on November 22 accepted a demand draft of Rs 275 crore submitted by the real estate firm and directed it to pay another two tranches of Rs 150 crore and Rs 125 crore respectively by December 14 and 31. Earlier, the court had directed 13 directors of JAL not to alienate their personal properties. The top court had also made it clear that it was granting "indulgence" to allow the firm to deposit Rs 2,000 crore in instalments as the interest of homebuyers was "paramount". The JAL directors had filed affidavits giving details of their personal assets and they are now required to appear again on January 10. The apex court, on November 13, had also restrained the managing director and the directors of Jaypee Infratech Ltd from travelling abroad without prior permission. The court had asked Jaypee Infratech to hand over the records to the interim resolution professional (IRP) to draft a resolution plan indicating protection of interests of over 32,000 hassled home buyers and creditors. It had also stayed any proceedings instituted against Jaypee Infratech for any purpose in any forum like the consumer commission, as the IRP has been given control of the company's management. Homebuyers including one Chitra Sharma, through lawyer Ashwarya Sinha, had moved the apex court saying around 32,000 people had booked their flats and are now paying installments. The top court had on September 4 stayed insolvency proceedings against the real estate firm at National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Flat buyers, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016, do not fall in the category of secured creditors like banks and hence they can get back their money only if something is left after repaying the secured and operational creditors, Sharma, in her plea, said. Hundreds of home buyers have been left in the lurch after the NCLT, on August 10, admitted the IDBI Bank's plea to initiate insolvency proceedings against the debt-ridden realty company for defaulting on a Rs 526 crore loan, the plea said.

Deposit Rs 125 crore by Jan 25 or face contempt: Supreme Court to Jaypee Group

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed company law tribunal NCLT order allowing Centre to take over management of embattled realty firm Unitech Ltd.

The court had said on Tuesday that the company law tribunal should have taken its leave before allowing the Centre to take over the management of embattled realty firm Unitech Limited, as it was seized of the matter.

Today, during the hearing, Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing on behalf of Centre, said the government should not have approached NCLT with the plea to take over management of Unitech.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud asked the Centre why it had not taken the apex court&#39;s permission to move the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for suspension of Unitech&#39;s directors and their substitution by government nominees.

Senior lawyers Mukul Rohatgi and Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the real estate firm and its promoters, said the apex court had given time to Unitech chief Sanjay Chandra to negotiate from jail to sell assets to generate Rs 750 crore for refunding money to home buyers but, in the mean time, the Centre has approached the NCLT.

Rohatgi alleged that the NCLT did not issue notice to the firm and its directors and passed the interim order, which was virtually a final order, and allowed the Centre to take over the firm.

The NCLT, on December 8, had suspended all the eight directors of the realty firm over allegations of mismanagement and siphoning of funds and had authorised the Centre to appoint its <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/nclt-allows-govt-to-appoint-10-directors-on-unitech-board-26253">10 nominees on the board</a>.

The NCLT order had come after the Centre moved the panel with a view to protect the interests of nearly 20,000 home buyers.

Unitech alleged that the takeover of the management of the company by the Centre would make it difficult for them to deposit Rs 750 crore as directed by the apex court to safeguard the interests of homebuyers.

Sanjay Chandra, head of the embattled real estate group, was asked on October 30 by the apex court to deposit Rs 750 crore with it by December end for the sake of the homebuyers.

The apex court had on October 30 said jailed businessman Chandra will be granted bail only after the real estate group deposited money with its registry by December end.

Chandra is seeking interim bail from the apex court after the Delhi High Court on August 11 had rejected the plea in a criminal case lodged in 2015 by 158 home buyers of Unitech projects - &#39;Wild Flower Country&#39; and &#39;Anthea Project&#39; - situated in Gurugram.

&nbsp;

The court had said on Tuesday that the company law tribunal should have taken its leave before allowing the Centre to take over the management of embattled realty firm Unitech Limited, as it was seized of the matter.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed company law tribunal NCLT order allowing Centre to take over management of embattled realty firm Unitech Ltd. The court had said on Tuesday that the company law tribunal should have taken its leave before allowing the Centre to take over the management of embattled realty firm Unitech Limited, as it was seized of the matter. Today, during the hearing, Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing on behalf of Centre, said the government should not have approached NCLT with the plea to take over management of Unitech. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud asked the Centre why it had not taken the apex court's permission to move the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for suspension of Unitech's directors and their substitution by government nominees. Senior lawyers Mukul Rohatgi and Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the real estate firm and its promoters, said the apex court had given time to Unitech chief Sanjay Chandra to negotiate from jail to sell assets to generate Rs 750 crore for refunding money to home buyers but, in the mean time, the Centre has approached the NCLT. Rohatgi alleged that the NCLT did not issue notice to the firm and its directors and passed the interim order, which was virtually a final order, and allowed the Centre to take over the firm. The NCLT, on December 8, had suspended all the eight directors of the realty firm over allegations of mismanagement and siphoning of funds and had authorised the Centre to appoint its 10 nominees on the board. The NCLT order had come after the Centre moved the panel with a view to protect the interests of nearly 20,000 home buyers. Unitech alleged that the takeover of the management of the company by the Centre would make it difficult for them to deposit Rs 750 crore as directed by the apex court to safeguard the interests of homebuyers. Sanjay Chandra, head of the embattled real estate group, was asked on October 30 by the apex court to deposit Rs 750 crore with it by December end for the sake of the homebuyers. The apex court had on October 30 said jailed businessman Chandra will be granted bail only after the real estate group deposited money with its registry by December end. Chandra is seeking interim bail from the apex court after the Delhi High Court on August 11 had rejected the plea in a criminal case lodged in 2015 by 158 home buyers of Unitech projects - 'Wild Flower Country' and 'Anthea Project' - situated in Gurugram.

Supreme Court stays NCLT order allowing Centre to take over management of Unitech

The Supreme Court agreed to hear tomorrow the appeal of Unitech Limited challenging the recent order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) directing the central government to take over the management of the embattled real estate firm.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud considered the submission of the real estate firm that its bank accounts have been frozen and the company and its jailed promoters are finding it difficult to deposit Rs 750 crore as asked by the apex court.

The NCLT has recently invoked the provisions of the Companies Act and allowed the central government to take over the Unitech Limited and appoint its nominee directors in the Board of the firm.

Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the company said the entire firm has been taken over by the government and its appeal be heard on an urgent basis.

The apex court had on November 20 directed Tihar Jail authorities to grant adequate meeting time to their inmate Sanjay Chandra, Managing Director Unitech Ltd, for allowing him to strike deals with prospective buyers as he was asked by the court to deposit Rs 750 crore with it by December end to safeguard the interests of homebuyers.

The top court had on October 30 said that the jailed businessman will be granted bail only after the real estate group deposits money with its registry by December end.

He sought interim bail from the apex court after the Delhi High Court on August 11 had rejected the plea in a criminal case lodged in 2015 by 158 home buyers of Unitech projects&#39; -- &#39;Wild Flower Country&#39; and &#39;Anthea Project&#39; --in Gurugram.

The NCLT has recently invoked the provisions of the Companies Act and allowed the central government to take over the Unitech Limited and appoint its nominee directors in the Board of the firm.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear tomorrow the appeal of Unitech Limited challenging the recent order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) directing the central government to take over the management of the embattled real estate firm. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud considered the submission of the real estate firm that its bank accounts have been frozen and the company and its jailed promoters are finding it difficult to deposit Rs 750 crore as asked by the apex court. The NCLT has recently invoked the provisions of the Companies Act and allowed the central government to take over the Unitech Limited and appoint its nominee directors in the Board of the firm. Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the company said the entire firm has been taken over by the government and its appeal be heard on an urgent basis. The apex court had on November 20 directed Tihar Jail authorities to grant adequate meeting time to their inmate Sanjay Chandra, Managing Director Unitech Ltd, for allowing him to strike deals with prospective buyers as he was asked by the court to deposit Rs 750 crore with it by December end to safeguard the interests of homebuyers. The top court had on October 30 said that the jailed businessman will be granted bail only after the real estate group deposits money with its registry by December end. He sought interim bail from the apex court after the Delhi High Court on August 11 had rejected the plea in a criminal case lodged in 2015 by 158 home buyers of Unitech projects' -- 'Wild Flower Country' and 'Anthea Project' --in Gurugram.

Supreme Court to hear appeal of Unitech against NCLT order tomorrow

The National Company Law Tribunal today allowed the government to appoint 10 directors on the board of debt-ridden realty firm Unitech Ltd.&nbsp;

The two-member NCLT bench headed by Chairman Justice M M Kumar has directed the government to submit the 10 names by December 20, the next date of hearing.

The government had approached the NCLT to take over the management of Unitech alleging mismanagement and siphoning of funds by the management.&nbsp;NCLT has also issued a&nbsp;notice to Unitech Ltd directing it to file the reply.

&quot;They have permitted the central government to appoint 10 nominee directors to run the day to day business and list of that would be given by 20th December&quot;, said Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain who had appeared on behalf of the Government&nbsp;in NCLT.&nbsp;

He further said: &quot;In the meanwhile, the suspended directors of the company shall not sell, mortgage or create charge either their properties or company&#39;s properties&quot;.

A two-member NCLT bench have permitted Central government to appoint 10 nominee directors to run Unitech over allegations of money siphoning by the original management

The National Company Law Tribunal today allowed the government to appoint 10 directors on the board of debt-ridden realty firm Unitech Ltd. The two-member NCLT bench headed by Chairman Justice M M Kumar has directed the government to submit the 10 names by December 20, the next date of hearing. The government had approached the NCLT to take over the management of Unitech alleging mismanagement and siphoning of funds by the management. NCLT has also issued a notice to Unitech Ltd directing it to file the reply. "They have permitted the central government to appoint 10 nominee directors to run the day to day business and list of that would be given by 20th December", said Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain who had appeared on behalf of the Government in NCLT. He further said: "In the meanwhile, the suspended directors of the company shall not sell, mortgage or create charge either their properties or company's properties".

NCLT allows govt to appoint 10 directors on Unitech board

India&#39;s National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Wednesday dismissed a contempt petition filed by two companies owned by ousted Tata Sons chairman Cyrus Mistry&#39;s family against Tata Sons and its directors.&nbsp;

The companies had alleged violation of NCLT directives in taking steps to remove Cyrus Mistry from the board of Tata Sons.

Pronouncing the operative part of the order, a division bench of NCLT said, &quot;the contempt petition is dismissed.&quot;

The bench was of the view that the action of Tata Sons did not amount to contempt of court.

The bench, however, gave liberty to the Mistry family companies to file an affidavit within three days on the issue of Tata Sons holding an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) on February 6.

Tata Sons was also asked to file a rejoinder, if any, three days thereafter.

In their petition, Cyrus Investments Ltd and Sterling Investment had also sought injunction against the Tata Sons barring them from &quot;convening or holding of the EGM scheduled for February 6, 2017 or any other date or from transacting any business threat.&quot;

NCLT kept this matter for hearing on January 31 and February 1 when the main petition filed earlier by the two Mistry companies against Tata Sons would be heard.

The earlier petition had challenged Mistry&#39;s removal as the chairman of Tata Sons alleging bad practices, oppression and mismanagement in the holding company.

NCLT, on December 22 last year, had refused interim relief and posted the main petition for hearing on January 31 and February 1. Today, the tribunal clubbed the issue of holding EGM of February 6 along with the hearing of the main petition.

Meanwhile, the Mistry companies filed a contempt plea with NCLT against Tata Sons accusing them of &quot;committing a breach&quot; of an NCLT order of December 22 by giving a special notice on January 3, 2017, for removal of Mistry as a director of the board of Tata Sons, &quot;in the clear violation of the order&quot;.

It sought punishment for Ratan Tata, other directors of Tata Sons and trustees of Sir Ratan Tata Trust and Sir Dorabjee Trust &mdash; N A Soonawala, R K Krishnakumar and R Venkatramana &mdash; under the Contempt of Court Act which provides for simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or fine of Rs 2,000 or both.

Last October, Tata Sons removed Mistry as its Chairman, nearly four years after he took over the reins of the over USD 100 billion salt-to-software conglomerate.

A Sundaram, counsel for Mistry&#39;s family companies, had argued that removal of Mistry as a director of Tata Sons could have waited.

He contended that by calling an EGM to remove Mistry as a director of the company, Tata Sons and others had committed direct violation of the December 22 tribunal order and its action amounted to &quot;wilful disobedience&quot; of NCLT&#39;s order in an earlier petition filed by Mistry&#39;s family owned companies against Tata Sons.

Sundaram further argued that the move to remove Mistry was against the spirit of the NCLT order which had earlier stated that the respondents will not &quot;initiate any action or proceedings over this subject matter pending disposal of the company petition.&quot;

The contempt petition contended that the move of Tata Sons to call an EGM on February 6 to remove Mistry as a director violated the undertaking given by its lawyers to NCLT which heard an earlier petition filed by the investment firms on December 22.

The lawyers had assured the Tribunal that no further action would be taken in this matter until the petition was finally heard and disposed of, said the contempt petition.

Abhishek Manu Singhvi, counsel for Tata Sons, said the respondents &mdash; Tata Sons and its Directors &mdash; had not committed any contempt of NCLT by calling an EGM to remove Mistry.

Singhvi had argued that Tata Sons had not given any specific undertaking to the Tribunal earlier that Mistry would not be removed as director from the company. Hence, there was no contempt committed by Tata Sons and others.

The Tata Sons&#39; lawyer further argued that there was nothing implicit in the order of NCLT of December 22 that Mistry should not be removed.

He had said that Tata Sons had no option but to remove Mistry from the board because he violated his fiduciary duty to the share-holders by leaking confidential information which was damaging to Tata companies.

He argued that Tata Sons was seeking Mistry&#39;s removal as a director as he was acting in a manner detrimental to the company.

(PTI)

The companies had alleged violation of the tribunal directives in taking steps to remove Cyrus Mistry from the board of Tata Sons

India's National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Wednesday dismissed a contempt petition filed by two companies owned by ousted Tata Sons chairman Cyrus Mistry's family against Tata Sons and its directors. The companies had alleged violation of NCLT directives in taking steps to remove Cyrus Mistry from the board of Tata Sons. Pronouncing the operative part of the order, a division bench of NCLT said, "the contempt petition is dismissed." The bench was of the view that the action of Tata Sons did not amount to contempt of court. The bench, however, gave liberty to the Mistry family companies to file an affidavit within three days on the issue of Tata Sons holding an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) on February 6. Tata Sons was also asked to file a rejoinder, if any, three days thereafter. In their petition, Cyrus Investments Ltd and Sterling Investment had also sought injunction against the Tata Sons barring them from "convening or holding of the EGM scheduled for February 6, 2017 or any other date or from transacting any business threat." NCLT kept this matter for hearing on January 31 and February 1 when the main petition filed earlier by the two Mistry companies against Tata Sons would be heard. The earlier petition had challenged Mistry's removal as the chairman of Tata Sons alleging bad practices, oppression and mismanagement in the holding company. NCLT, on December 22 last year, had refused interim relief and posted the main petition for hearing on January 31 and February 1. Today, the tribunal clubbed the issue of holding EGM of February 6 along with the hearing of the main petition. Meanwhile, the Mistry companies filed a contempt plea with NCLT against Tata Sons accusing them of "committing a breach" of an NCLT order of December 22 by giving a special notice on January 3, 2017, for removal of Mistry as a director of the board of Tata Sons, "in the clear violation of the order". It sought punishment for Ratan Tata, other directors of Tata Sons and trustees of Sir Ratan Tata Trust and Sir Dorabjee Trust — N A Soonawala, R K Krishnakumar and R Venkatramana — under the Contempt of Court Act which provides for simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or fine of Rs 2,000 or both. Last October, Tata Sons removed Mistry as its Chairman, nearly four years after he took over the reins of the over USD 100 billion salt-to-software conglomerate. A Sundaram, counsel for Mistry's family companies, had argued that removal of Mistry as a director of Tata Sons could have waited. He contended that by calling an EGM to remove Mistry as a director of the company, Tata Sons and others had committed direct violation of the December 22 tribunal order and its action amounted to "wilful disobedience" of NCLT's order in an earlier petition filed by Mistry's family owned companies against Tata Sons. Sundaram further argued that the move to remove Mistry was against the spirit of the NCLT order which had earlier stated that the respondents will not "initiate any action or proceedings over this subject matter pending disposal of the company petition." The contempt petition contended that the move of Tata Sons to call an EGM on February 6 to remove Mistry as a director violated the undertaking given by its lawyers to NCLT which heard an earlier petition filed by the investment firms on December 22. The lawyers had assured the Tribunal that no further action would be taken in this matter until the petition was finally heard and disposed of, said the contempt petition. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, counsel for Tata Sons, said the respondents — Tata Sons and its Directors — had not committed any contempt of NCLT by calling an EGM to remove Mistry. Singhvi had argued that Tata Sons had not given any specific undertaking to the Tribunal earlier that Mistry would not be removed as director from the company. Hence, there was no contempt committed by Tata Sons and others. The Tata Sons' lawyer further argued that there was nothing implicit in the order of NCLT of December 22 that Mistry should not be removed. He had said that Tata Sons had no option but to remove Mistry from the board because he violated his fiduciary duty to the share-holders by leaking confidential information which was damaging to Tata companies. He argued that Tata Sons was seeking Mistry's removal as a director as he was acting in a manner detrimental to the company. (PTI)

Relief for Tata Sons as tribunal rejects contempt plea by Cyrus Mistry's companies

nclt

Nclt, News on Nclt, stories on Nclt, articles on Nclt, Nclt stories at Wion, Nclt news, Nclt latest news