Subhash Chandra release lender-wise breakup, puts contested personal guarantee claims at Rs 4,262 crore

Essel Group founder Subhash Chandra on Sunday released a lender-wise break-up of the claims filed against him in his personal insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, naming 10 lenders and putting the amount still in contest at Rs 4,262 crore.

In a statement issued from his office, Chandra said the companies whose borrowings he had guaranteed were disbursed Rs 4,808 crore, of which Rs 3,803 crore had already been repaid, leaving an outstanding balance of Rs 998 crore. Against that balance, he said, the lenders who objected to the repayment plan submitted by the resolution professional had filed claims of Rs 5,311 crore.

Of that Rs 5,311 crore, claims aggregating Rs 1,049 crore — those of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd and the Axis Bank group — have been settled or paid since the personal insolvency proceedings began, according to the statement, leaving Rs 4,262 crore outstanding “as per claims” though not, in his account, reconciled between lender and borrower.

The statement is Chandra’s second detailed public intervention in four days. It follows the NCLT’s August 25 order approving a repayment plan under Section 114 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, providing for a payout of Rs 6.5 crore against admitted claims of about Rs 22,006 crore, and a statement issued on August 26-27 in which he said the claims of the objecting lenders totalled Rs 3,992 crore rather than Rs 22,000 crore.

Sunday’s statement reconciles that earlier figure. The amounts differ from the earlier press statement, it says, “because some accounts were not taken as they neither voted for or against.”

Chandra said he had issued the fresh account after observing social media posts over the preceding three days, some carrying the hashtag #PaiseVapasKaro, which he attributed to a wrong perception of the matter.

The lender-wise table

#	Lender	Disbursed at borrowing (Rs cr)	Repaid by borrowers (Rs cr)	Balance outstanding (Rs cr)	Claimed from PG (Rs cr)	Balance per claims (Rs cr)
1	Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd	726	771	(49)	429	Nil — settled/paid
2	Axis Bank Group	388	157	231	620	Nil — settled/paid
3	HDFC Group (4/5 accounts)	1,025	1,275	(250)	775	775
4	Canara Bank	315	202	112	348	348
5	Edelweiss	300	232	68	565	565
6	Franklin Templeton	425	235	190	729	729
7	IndusInd Bank	500	493	7	240	240
8	LIC Housing Finance (multiple accounts)	980	416	564	1,322	1,322
9	RBL Bank	65	10	54	119	119
10	Union Bank	84	12	71	164	164
	Total	4,808	3,803	998	5,311	4,262

Source: Statement from the Office of Dr. Subhash Chandra, dated August 30, 2026. Figures in parentheses denote repayments exceeding the amount disbursed, per the statement. Column totals are as printed in the statement.

Against several entries, the statement records the guarantor’s characterisation of the lender’s position. The HDFC group’s claims are described as being “without valid personal guarantee.” Canara Bank’s exposure is described as borrowing against assets of the borrower in the United States. On Edelweiss, the statement asserts that security of more than Rs 500 crore was available at the time of default and that the matter is also pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

On Franklin Templeton and IndusInd Bank, the statement makes the same argument in different words: that the borrower had offered to sell available security during the default period, or that adequate security existed, but the lender chose not to convert it to cash in the expectation of a gain, and therefore carried the resulting loss at its own risk. LIC Housing Finance is described as having offered to settle with part security available, and RBL Bank as having refused a payment offered on the same terms as the settlement reached with a larger lender. Union Bank is marked simply as having security available.

None of the lenders named has publicly responded to the specific characterisations in the table. LIC Housing Finance has separately been reported as saying that the NCLT order does not affect the underlying liabilities of the corporate borrowers or its security.

Guarantees signed, and when

The statement repeats Chandra’s central contention that he has no personal borrowing from any of the creditors, putting borrowing by him at zero and total personal guarantees signed at approximately Rs 22,000 crore.

It adds a distinction not spelt out in the earlier statement: of that Rs 22,000 crore, guarantees of about Rs 4,800 crore were signed at the time the borrowers drew down funds, with the remainder signed after default had occurred — a point on which the statement says he is “not complaining, as I own the signatures.”

The statement also sets out the resolution professional’s examination of the guarantor’s own means. It says the RP investigated how assets of Rs 39.08 crore declared by Chandra in Parliament in 2016 had been reduced to Rs 31.79 crore, a figure that includes a residential house valued at Rs 25 crore which was itself mortgaged, leaving liquid assets of Rs 6.79 crore.

Chandra, who was a Rajya Sabha member from Haryana between August 2016 and August 2022, said the repayment plan had been prepared by the RP on the basis of the total assets and funds available with him as personal guarantor. The RP in a personal insolvency process is appointed by the tribunal and is treated as an officer of the court.

The statement closes with a commitment: that Chandra has discussed the matter with all the borrowing entities and that they have assured him they will settle the Rs 4,262 crore after reconciliation with the lenders, and pay the balance. It gives no timeline, no schedule of payments, and no indication of the security or source of funds behind that assurance.

The NCLT’s order of August 25, passed by Member (Judicial) Nilesh Sharma sitting as a third member after a split, approved the plan with the support of creditors holding 80.81 per cent of voting share, holding that the tribunal would not substitute its own commercial judgment for that of the creditors. The order observed that resolving the debtor’s insolvency and restoring him to solvency could improve the objecting creditors’ prospects of recovering directly from the principal debtors.

Also See: Explainer on NCLT approval to Subhash Chandra’s repayment plan of Rs 6.5 crore against Rs 22,000 crore debt