The liquidator of Suryajyoti Spinning Mills Ltd has issued a fresh sale notice for the textile company’s three Telangana manufacturing units and its residual movable assets, with a combined reserve price of ₹123.03 crore, according to a public notice published on August 26 in Business Standard, The Times of India (Telangana) and both the Greater Hyderabad and Telangana editions of Eenadu.

The e-auction is scheduled for September 26, 2026, in four hourly slots on the Baanknet platform, the notice signed by liquidator Madhusudhan Rao Gonugunta says. The last date for submitting expressions of interest with all bid documents, and for depositing earnest money, is September 24.

Suryajyoti Spinning Mills (CIN: L18100TG1983PLC003961) was admitted to the corporate insolvency resolution process by the Hyderabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal in CP (IB) No. 166/7/HDB/2019, and was ordered into liquidation on April 18, 2023, in IA No. 96 of 2021, according to NCLT order listings published on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India website.

The lots

The Makthal unit, described in the notice as being around 150 km from Hyderabad airport, carries a reserve price of ₹21.97 crore and an earnest money deposit of ₹2.197 crore, with bidding between 11 a.m. and noon.

The Rajapur unit, described as facing National Highway No. 7 and around 60 km from the airport, is reserved at ₹42.93 crore against an EMD of ₹4.293 crore, with bidding from noon to 1 p.m.

The largest lot is the Kurchrekal unit at Kucherkal village, Balanagar, Mahabubnagar, around 65 km from the airport, reserved at ₹55.10 crore with an EMD of ₹5.51 crore. Bidding runs from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.

The fourth lot — vehicles, furniture and fixtures, computers and financial assets of the corporate debtor — is reserved at ₹3.03 crore with an EMD of ₹0.303 crore, and is scheduled for 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. The notice states that this lot “will be sold only in case of sale of all the Lot No 1 to 3 only.”

Reserves unchanged from last year’s failed round

The reserve prices for all four lots are identical to those set in the liquidator’s previous sale notice, issued on June 20, 2025, for an auction on July 22, 2025, according to the auction-notice register maintained by IBBI. That round listed Makthal at ₹21.97 crore, Rajapur at ₹42.93 crore, Kurcherkal at ₹55.10 crore and the movable-assets lot at ₹3.03 crore.

Two lots that appeared in the 2025 notice are absent from the current one. The Burgul unit, reserved at ₹24.77 crore in June 2025, does not feature in the August 26 notice. Nor does the lot offering the company as a whole on a going-concern basis, which had been reserved at ₹133 crore in June 2025 and at ₹150 crore in the liquidator’s November 2023 notice. The notice does not state why either lot has been dropped.

Against the November 2023 round, the three plant reserves are down 9.7 per cent in aggregate — Makthal from ₹24.78 crore, Rajapur from ₹46.00 crore and the Kucherkal fabric unit from ₹62.13 crore, per the IBBI register. (Derived: percentage change calculated by this publication from the two sets of published reserve prices.)

Litigation over the July 2025 round

The July 2025 auction was contested. A division bench of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice P. Sam Koshy declined to stay it, hearing a writ petition by former director Arun Kumar Agarwal, who had challenged an NCLT order refusing to restrain the sale notice, according to a Deccan Chronicle report published in July 2025. The report says the petitioner argued that the stakeholders’ consultation committee had discussed the company’s viability as a going concern and recommended cancelling the sale notice, and that the liquidator had moved the NCLT for a stay on that basis. The bench noted that proceedings had run for six years and that earlier compromise attempts had not fructified.

The IBBI order register also lists an NCLT Hyderabad order dated December 3, 2025 in IA (IBC) No. 154 of 2024 in CP (IB) No. 166/7/HDB/2019, and a separate order in which the tribunal imposed costs on an applicant, Sanjeev Mitla, in a matter against the liquidator.

Terms

The assets are being sold on an “as is where is”, “as is what is”, “whatever there is basis” and “no recourse basis”. Bidders must file a declaration of eligibility under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code through the auction platform, and the EMD of the highest bidder is liable to forfeiture if the bidder is found ineligible during the process, the notice says. Bidding for more than one lot is permitted on deposit of separate EMD for each lot. Registration charges, GST and other levies are payable by the bidder over and above the sale price.

The liquidator reserves the right to accept, cancel, extend or modify the terms of the auction at any time, and to reject any bid without assigning reasons, the notice states. Gonugunta’s registration number is IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00181/2017-18/10360.

Queries have been sent to the liquidator at the process email address cited in the notice. This story will be updated if a response is received.

Also see: Ozone Homes invites bids under insolvency process; EoI deadline September 11

The post Three plants of Suryajyoti Spinning Mills back on the block at ₹120 crore reserve; Burgul unit missing from lot list appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

Ozone Homes Private Limited, a real estate company undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), has invited expressions of interest (EoI) from prospective resolution applicants as it seeks to revive the company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The invitation has been issued through a modified Form G by resolution professional Ashok Mittal. The revised timelines supersede those contained in the Form G published on July 28, 2026, and have been issued following approval by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

The last date for submission of EoI is September 11, 2026. The provisional list of prospective resolution applicants will be issued on September 21, while objections to the list can be submitted until September 26. The final list is scheduled to be issued on October 6.

The information memorandum, evaluation matrix and request for resolution plans will be issued on October 12. Resolution applicants will have time until November 11 to submit their resolution plans.

Ozone Homes has its registered office at GN Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. The company has not operated any business during FY2024-25, according to information provided by its suspended management. It also had no employees or workers during the period.

The company’s website is currently not operational.

Two key real estate projects

The majority of the fixed assets of Ozone Homes are located in Mumbai and Chennai, according to the insolvency process document. In Chennai, the company has a project named Gardenia, where a few unsold units are owned by the corporate debtor. However, these units have been attached by authorities. In Mumbai, Ozone Homes has The Autograph, a project being constructed under a joint development agreement. The project is currently stalled and is also under litigation.

The document states that the company had no income booked during FY2024-25 and that it had not conducted any business during the last financial year. Ozone Homes is also not registered as a micro, small or medium enterprise (MSME), according to the Form G.

The resolution professional has provided an email address for prospective applicants to seek further information and submit their expressions of interest. The insolvency process is being conducted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India’s (IBBI) framework.

The revised Form G is dated August 12, 2026, and has been issued from Mumbai by resolution professional Ashok Mittal, who is overseeing the CIRP of Ozone Homes.

Initiation of Insolvency

Ozone Projects Private Limited has been admitted into the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) after the Chennai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitted a petition filed by IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd, acting as debenture trustee for the financial creditors.

The NCLT Division Bench-I, comprising Member (Judicial) Sanjiv Jain and Member (Technical) Venkataraman Subramaniam, admitted the petition on July 16, 2026, and appointed Ashok Mittal as the interim resolution professional (IRP).

The insolvency proceedings stem from a Rs 126.30-crore debenture facility extended to Ozone Projects under a Debenture Trust Deed dated June 29, 2016. IDBI Trusteeship Services had filed the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in its capacity as debenture trustee for the debenture holders, including Indiabulls Real Estate Fund and Patni Healthcare Ltd.

According to the NCLT order, the company defaulted on its repayment obligations under the trust deed. The redemption date was extended seven times at the company’s request, with the final extension running until September 20, 2021. As of July 31, 2022, the amount claimed as outstanding stood at Rs 212.32 crore.

Also See: Unitech homebuyers seek urgent appointment of CMD as projects remain stalled

The post Ozone Homes invites bids under insolvency process; EoI deadline September 11 appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

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

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

The post Subhash Chandra release lender-wise breakup, puts contested personal guarantee claims at Rs 4,262 crore appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

The Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has ordered initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Essel Infraprojects Ltd on a petition filed by Jammu and Kashmir Bank over a default of Rs 87.43 crore. Essel Infraprojects is one of many Subhash Chandra companies facing insolvency process.

The NCLT’s Court-V, in an order pronounced on August 24, held that the bank had established the existence of debt and default and that its petition was within the limitation period. The tribunal also rejected Essel Infraprojects’ contention that it had been discharged from its corporate guarantee after the transfer of the underlying mortgaged property to other group entities.

The default relates to a Rs 200-crore line of credit facility sanctioned by Jammu and Kashmir Bank in 2013 to Pan India Utilities Distribution Company Ltd (PIUDCL). The bank disbursed Rs 125 crore on December 28, 2013, and the remaining Rs 75 crore two days later. Essel Infraprojects had provided a corporate guarantee for the facility and had also mortgaged 196.16 acres of land at Gorai in Mumbai as security.

According to the petition, the outstanding principal stood at Rs 69.97 crore as of March 1, 2019. With interest, penal interest and other charges, the total claim had risen to Rs 87.43 crore. The date of default relied upon by the bank was October 29, 2019.

Dispute over corporate guarantee

The case centred on whether Essel Infraprojects continued to be liable under the corporate guarantee after the Gorai land was transferred as part of group restructuring.

Essel Infraprojects argued that the land was transferred to Essel Urban Infrastructures Pvt Ltd under a demerger scheme sanctioned by the Bombay High Court in April 2014. Essel Urban was subsequently merged with Pan India Infraprojects Pvt Ltd (PIIPL), resulting in the land being transferred to PIIPL. The company contended that Jammu and Kashmir Bank was aware of these transactions and had subsequently sought a fresh mortgage and guarantee from PIIPL.

The company also argued that the bank’s 2017 renewal-cum-reduction letter amounted to a material alteration of the original security arrangement and discharged Essel Infraprojects from its guarantee under the Indian Contract Act. It further claimed that the bank had already proceeded against PIUDCL and PIIPL, and therefore could not pursue Essel Infraprojects as well.

The tribunal, however, rejected these arguments.

It noted that the original corporate guarantee was an independent and continuing obligation. The guarantee specifically stated that it would remain in force until the loan was fully liquidated and would not be prejudiced by absorption or amalgamation of the guarantor. It also provided that the guarantee would be in addition to any other security held by the bank.

The NCLT said the 2017 sanction letter did not establish that the original guarantee was substituted or extinguished. The bank’s request for an additional guarantee and mortgage from PIIPL did not, by itself, amount to novation or release of Essel Infraprojects from its existing obligation.

The tribunal also held that the demerger scheme did not specifically provide for the transfer or extinguishment of Essel Infraprojects’ independent liability under the corporate guarantee. Mere transfer of liabilities relating to the demerged undertaking was insufficient to establish that the continuing guarantee had moved to the resulting company.

Bank can proceed against multiple guarantors

The NCLT further rejected the argument that the bank could not initiate proceedings against Essel Infraprojects after proceeding against PIUDCL and PIIPL.

It held that a creditor can proceed simultaneously against the principal borrower and multiple guarantors, with the liability of other parties extinguished only to the extent of actual recovery. In this case, there had been no actual recovery of the claimed amount from either PIUDCL or PIIPL.

PIUDCL had itself been admitted into CIRP in September 2019 following its default, while PIIPL had also subsequently undergone insolvency proceedings.

The tribunal also dismissed Essel Infraprojects’ objection concerning the authority of the bank official who filed the petition, holding that the relevant power of attorney was sufficiently wide to cover initiation of insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

With the debt exceeding the Rs 1-crore threshold under the Code, the NCLT admitted the restored petition and ordered CIRP against Essel Infraprojects.

Hemant J Mehta was appointed as the interim resolution professional. The tribunal directed Jammu and Kashmir Bank to deposit Rs 5 lakh towards the initial CIRP cost.

A moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC has also been imposed, restricting suits and recovery proceedings against the company and preventing transfer or disposal of its assets during the insolvency process. The moratorium will remain in force until completion of the CIRP, approval of a resolution plan or an order for liquidation, as applicable.

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

The post NCLT go-ahead to insolvency process against Subhash Chandra firm Essel Infraprojects appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

A judicial member of the National Company Law Tribunal, Nilesh Sharma, gave his opinion on 25 August 2026 that Subhash Chandra’s offer of ₹6.5 crore to settle personal guarantee claims should be accepted. Objecting lenders put the claims against him at around ₹22,006.57 crore.

Q. Why did a single member decide this and not a bench?

Because the two-member bench hearing the case could not agree. On 3 September 2025, judicial member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj held the offer should be approved. Technical member Reena Sinha Puri held it should be rejected and that lenders were free to move for bankruptcy. When members split, the NCLT president can send the disagreement to a third member. That reference was made on 9 February 2026.

Q. So is the settlement now final?

No. Sharma’s opinion tips the count in favour of approval, but he has sent the file back to the original bench, which has to pass the actual order. Until that happens, nothing is formally approved.

Q. How did the case start?

Indiabulls Housing Finance went to the tribunal in 2022 to recover money from Chandra as a guarantor. A resolution professional, Raj Kamal Saraogi, was appointed on 30 May 2022, but the case stalled after the Supreme Court passed an interim order that August. The court lifted it in April 2024, the case was admitted, and Shiv Nandan Sharma took over as resolution professional in May 2024. He then asked the tribunal to approve the repayment offer Chandra had put forward.

Q. What exactly is on offer?

₹6.5 crore in total — ₹6.25 crore for lenders, ₹25 lakh for the cost of running the process.

Q. Why did the tribunal agree on ₹6.25 crore repayment plan?

Chandra’s side argued that his personal estate had very limited value and that he had offered virtually everything available to him. The repayment plan proposed using the proceeds from the sale of his few assets and deposits to generate Rs 6.5 crore, with his side maintaining that the amount represented everything available to him for repayment. It argued that rejection of the plan would push him into bankruptcy without giving creditors a better recovery prospect.

Q. What does that work out to for an individual lender?

LIC Housing Finance, owed ₹1,322.39 crore, told the tribunal its share came to ₹38,09,294. That is about 0.028 per cent of what it is owed. It also complained that even this amount was described in the plan as only indicative, not guaranteed.

Q. Why do lenders think Chandra can pay more?

Because of what he has told banks before. A certificate given to RBL Bank in 2017 put his net worth at USD 7.17 billion, roughly ₹45,888 crore. Another, given to Canara Bank in 2018, put it at ₹40,562 crore. He now says he is worth about ₹31.79 crore. Lenders wanted a forensic auditor and an asset-tracing agency appointed to explain the gap.

Q. Did the tribunal order that investigation?

No. Sharma accepted the gap was large enough to justify asking questions, but held that the old certificates by themselves do not prove assets were hidden or moved, and that the law does not require a forensic audit before a settlement offer can be considered. He also pointed out that a resolution professional in this type of case has no power to investigate on his own, and that no lender put forward actual evidence of concealment.

Q. The plan got 80.814 per cent approval. What was the objection to that?

Lenders argued most of the support came from Chandra’s own associates. The disputed voters were World Crest Advisors at 28.49 per cent, Lemonade Capital Advisors at 16.85 per cent, Corpcall Capital Advisors at 10.30 per cent, Veena Investments at 4.99 per cent and Direct Media Distribution Ventures at 1.15 per cent.

Q. How did the tribunal deal with that?

It applied the statutory test literally. Broadly, someone is an associate if the debtor owns more than half the shares or controls the board. Chandra does not meet that test for any of these firms. Sharma also refused to rely on two SEBI orders from 2023 that lenders had cited as proof of control, because the Securities Appellate Tribunal had set them aside.

Q. Did lenders win anything?

One point. Claims filed by two men — Anil Kumar on behalf of 960 people and Sunil Jain on behalf of 300 — were admitted with no supporting paperwork, on Chandra’s word alone. Sharma called this a failure by the resolution professional and ordered both, and everyone they represented, removed from the creditor list. Their share of the money goes to the remaining lenders.

Q. There were also complaints about the process being rushed. What came of them?

Chandra submitted his offer on 16 October 2024, the resolution professional filed his report the next day, the creditors’ meeting was held on 24 October, and voting closed on the morning of 1 November. The technical member had found this broke the fourteen-day notice requirements. Sharma disagreed, noting the lenders had themselves voted to cut the notice period to five days, voting stayed open longer than the minimum required, and everyone but a small slice of the creditor group took part. He did refuse to excuse the resolution professional’s failure to record lenders’ objections in his final report as promised, but held it did not sink the plan since the tribunal heard those objections anyway.

Q. What about STCI Finance?

STCI lent ₹250 crore in 2018 to two companies linked to Chandra and wanted to be treated as a secured creditor. Sharma held Chandra had only mortgaged a flat at Jolly Maker I in Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, and never signed a personal guarantee, so STCI has no claim against him personally. It keeps its right to sell the flat and recover its dues.

Q. And the ₹1,260-crore Delhi property?

Canara Bank came in after the case was reserved, citing news reports that a property in Lutyens’ Delhi had sold for about that amount, and asked for the money to be frozen. Chandra replied that 4, Bhagwan Das Road is not his — it belongs to Greatway Estates and is mortgaged to JC Flowers — and that he had disclosed the arrangement in his plan, which envisaged sale proceeds paying ₹774 crore to JC Flowers and clearing a claim of ₹6,182 crore. Sharma held a newspaper report with nothing behind it cannot be the basis for an investigation, and dismissed the application.

Q. What happens to lenders who voted against?

They are bound by the settlement anyway, and cannot separately chase Chandra for the full amount.

Q. Is there any way back for them?

One. If it later emerges that Chandra fraudulently concealed material assets, lenders can ask the tribunal to recall its order.

Q. What is Subash Chandra’s response to all the hue and cry

Subhash Chandra issued a press release from his office in Mumbai on August 27, 2026, saying media reports over the preceding two days had selectively reported the matter and urging platforms to remove what he called misinformation drawn from an incorrect reading of the order. He said the judge’s opinion is yet to be converted into a formal order and the matter is technically still pending before the NCLT, and that the matter has been pending since February 8, 2022.

Chandra said he has not personally borrowed from any lender named in the order and is only a personal guarantor, with most guarantees signed after January 24, 2019 — the date of the group’s default — at the request of lenders. Total guarantees signed were approximately Rs 22,000 crore. Claims filed in the proceeding totalled Rs 22,006 crore, of which Rs 21,696 crore was admitted. The repayment plan was approved by 80.814 per cent of creditors. Objecting creditors account for 19.251 per cent of claims and had filed claims of Rs 3,992 crore, of which Rs 620 crore has been settled, leaving Rs 3,372 crore. Lenders who did not object filed claims of Rs 16,386 crore, of which Rs 16,201 crore was admitted. Against the objectors’ claims, the borrowing entities say Rs 2,856 crore was released and Rs 1,633 crore repaid, leaving Rs 1,223 crore. Companies for which Chandra gave guarantees owed close to Rs 45,000 crore on January 24, 2019 and have since repaid close to Rs 43,000 crore. On net worth, Chandra said a lender’s figure of Rs 45,888 crore for 2017 was arrived at by attributing the entire market capitalisation of Essel Group entities to him, against assets of Rs 39.08 crore declared in his 2016 parliamentary filing and Rs 31.79 crore filed with the resolution professional, including a residential house worth about Rs 25 crore — the basis for the Rs 6.5 crore repayment plan.

Also See: Zee Group settles Rs 6,500 crore Yes Bank debt; bank takes 75% haircut

The post Explainer: NCLT approval to Subhash Chandra’s repayment plan of Rs 6.5 crore against Rs 22,000 crore debt appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

The National Company Law Tribunal’s Mumbai Bench-I has held that the resolution plan for Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd, approved by the tribunal in December 2023, is unimplementable in its present form and directed the erstwhile committee of creditors (CoC) to decide the way forward. The bench, comprising Prabhat Kumar, Member (Technical), and Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey, Member (Judicial), directed the erstwhile resolution professional to convene a meeting of the erstwhile CoC within 30 days to consider the issue and decide the future course of action.

The order, passed on August 21, came on applications filed by IDBI Bank and the successful resolution applicant, Reliance Projects and Property Management Services Ltd – once a Reliance Industries promoted company. The Mukesh Ambani-promoted RIL divested its entire stake in Reliance Projects and Property Management Services Ltd (RPPMSL) for ₹274 crore to Jaipur Enclave Pvt Ltd (JEPL).

Rs 16.95-crore gap

The tribunal’s finding centres on the funds available to meet mandatory payments to dissenting financial creditors. The corporate debtor’s liquidation value was assessed at Rs 428.51 crore. Based on this, IDBI Bank’s entitlement under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was calculated at Rs 48.22 crore, while the entitlement of all dissenting financial creditors together stood at Rs 318.67 crore.

Against this, the tribunal found that Rs 266.72 crore was available to meet these payments. This included Rs 57 crore to be paid by the resolution applicant, Rs 154.32 crore in cash and Rs 55.50 crore from realised real estate proceeds. The approved resolution plan capped any additional funding by the resolution applicant at Rs 35 crore. This took the total available funds to Rs 301.72 crore, leaving a shortfall of Rs 16.95 crore against the Rs 318.67 crore required.

However, the monitoring committee had earlier identified a higher shortfall of Rs 26.29 crore in meeting mandatory payments under the plan.

Dispute over Rs 195-crore Bhutan loan

The shortfall is linked to a dispute over distribution of the resolution proceeds. The resolution plan, approved by the CoC in August 2021 with 67.97% votes, envisaged payments including Rs 57 crore from the resolution applicant, use of cash available with the company, assignment of the Reliance Bhutan Loan with a face value of Rs 195 crore to financial creditors and proceeds from real estate monetisation.

The CoC later decided to assign the Bhutan loan to dissenting financial creditors. IDBI challenged the decision, and the NCLT in October 2025 held that the CoC could not alter the distribution mechanism without allowing creditors to reconsider their votes on the modified plan.

The NCLAT upheld the decision in December 2025. The matter is now under appeal before the Supreme Court. With the Bhutan loan assignment no longer available for distribution to dissenting creditors, the cash and realisation pool was insufficient to meet their statutory entitlement.

Tribunal pulls up resolution applicant

The tribunal also rejected the resolution applicant’s contention that it was not required to deposit the resolution money until the plan’s effective date.

It held that the plan required mandatory payments to dissenting creditors as a condition precedent to the effective date and that the resolution applicant was therefore required to deposit the money.

The bench also noted that the plan specifically provided that disputes between stakeholders over distribution would not affect implementation if they did not increase the overall resolution amount or the applicant’s liability.

The tribunal questioned why the monitoring committee had not issued a closing action notice to the resolution applicant after expiry of the statutory appeal period against the plan approval order.

RCom arm’s plan dates back to 2021

The resolution plan was submitted in July 2020 and amended subsequently. The CoC approved it on August 30, 2021, with 67.97% voting support. The NCLT eventually approved the plan on December 19, 2023.

The tribunal said it could neither direct the resolution applicant to deposit more than the Rs 35 crore additional funding permitted under the plan nor direct implementation of the plan without first making the mandatory payments to dissenting creditors. Either course, it said, would amount to modifying the approved plan.

Significantly, the bench said the case was not one of contravention of an approved resolution plan. Rather, “it is the terms of the plan itself which have rendered it unimplementable”.

The tribunal referred to Section 33(1A) of the IBC, which allows the erstwhile CoC to consider re-initiation of CIRP where an approved plan is contravened, and said the provision reflected the legislative intent of allowing a second attempt at resolution following a failed process.

It directed the erstwhile resolution professional to convene the erstwhile CoC within 30 days of the August 21 order to consider the unimplementability of the plan and decide the future course of action. The matter has been listed before the tribunal on September 24.

Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd was admitted to CIRP on September 25, 2019.

Reliance Communications Ltd disclosed the NCLT order to the stock exchanges on August 22. It said no specific violation or contravention had been alleged against it in the order and that the financial and operational impact, if any, was not presently quantifiable.

Also See: NBCC moves Supreme Court against NCLAT refusal to relax RERA norms for Supertech projects

The post NCLT finds Reliance Communication arm’s Rs 3,000-crore-plus resolution plan unimplementable appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

State-owned NBCC (India) Ltd has moved the Supreme Court against an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) refusing to exempt it from certain statutory requirements under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) while completing 16 stalled housing projects of Supertech Ltd.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, issued notice on NBCC’s petition on Monday and listed the matter for hearing on September 24.

NBCC is challenging the NCLAT’s May 22 order, which held that the appellate tribunal had no jurisdiction to waive requirements imposed by a statute. The tribunal said it had already directed the concerned authorities, including real estate regulators, to process and grant the approvals required by NBCC within specified timelines.

NBCC seeks flexibility to move project funds

One of the key relaxations sought by NBCC relates to RERA’s requirement that 70% of money collected from homebuyers be kept in a separate account for each registered project.

NBCC has argued that this restriction makes it difficult to complete Supertech’s projects because the 16 projects are at different stages of construction and have different funding positions. The company wants to use surplus collections from financially stronger projects to fund projects that have run out of money.

The company has also sought relief from the requirement to obtain prior consent from allottees before a majority of the promoter’s rights and liabilities can be transferred or assigned to a third party.

The NCLAT, however, said it could not grant exemptions from statutory provisions.

NBCC plans to start tendering

The Supreme Court notice comes as NBCC has already laid out a timeline for restarting work on the Supertech projects.

At the company’s first-quarter earnings call on August 12, chairman and managing director K.P. Mahadevaswamy said consultants had been appointed for all the Supertech projects and were preparing the quantities of work that remained to be completed.

NBCC expects to float and finalise tenders during the current quarter, with revenue from the Supertech projects expected to start flowing from the following quarter.

Mahadevaswamy said NBCC expects to award contracts worth ₹20,000-25,000 crore during the current financial year, of which around ₹10,000 crore would relate to Supertech.

He attributed the earlier delay in starting work on the Supertech projects to litigation and said the company had now received the required clearance from the Supreme Court to proceed with tendering.

RERA issue remains unresolved

While the Supreme Court has upheld NBCC’s role in completing the Supertech projects, the new petition deals with a different issue — how funds can be used once construction begins.

NBCC’s case before the NCLAT was that the project-wise escrow restrictions under RERA make it difficult to deploy available funds across the 16 projects.

The company has earlier estimated that completing the sold units alone would require fresh investment of around ₹1,700 crore, against projected receivables of about ₹2,200 crore from homebuyers. Depending on the stage of construction, delivery could take about one year for advanced projects and up to three years for projects where work has barely started.

Amrapali model

NBCC has pointed to its experience with the Amrapali projects as a model for completing Supertech’s stalled developments.

In the Amrapali case, the Supreme Court cancelled the developer’s RERA registration and placed the projects under NBCC as project management consultant. On the Supertech projects, however, the company continues to face the statutory restrictions under RERA that it says are making fund deployment difficult.

Mahadevaswamy said on the earnings call that NBCC earns an 8% project management fee and a 1% marketing fee on the Amrapali projects.

50,000 homes affected

Supertech was admitted to insolvency following a petition by Union Bank of India. The 16 projects assigned to NBCC comprise around 50,000 residential units across Noida, Greater Noida and other locations, a substantial number of which have been sold but remain undelivered.

NBCC was brought into the Supertech insolvency process by an NCLAT order of December 12, 2024, which directed the state-owned company to complete the projects in the interest of homebuyers.

The order was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court. The apex court ultimately upheld NBCC’s appointment, holding that bringing the company in to complete the stalled projects was neither unfair nor contrary to the IBC.

The NCLAT had, in its December 2024 order, also made it clear that NBCC would have to comply with statutory requirements, including RERA.

The Supreme Court’s September 24 hearing will now determine whether NBCC can get the additional flexibility it says is necessary to move funds across projects and speed up construction.

Also See: Unitech homebuyers seek urgent appointment of CMD as projects remain stalled

The post NBCC moves Supreme Court against NCLAT refusal to relax RERA norms for Supertech projects appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

Unitech homebuyers have stepped up their demand for the immediate appointment of a chairman and managing director (CMD) for the court-supervised real estate company, saying the leadership vacancy is affecting construction, project deliveries and customer service.

An online petition addressed to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has crossed 1,500 signatures, while five homebuyer associations have separately urged the government and the Supreme Court to intervene.

The CMD post fell vacant on July 20 after the tenure of Yudhvir Singh Malik, IAS (Retd), ended. Malik had been appointed CMD by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in January 2020 following a Supreme Court order that replaced the company’s erstwhile promoter-led board. His term was extended several times, most recently for six months from January 21, 2026.

The latest demand comes at a crucial stage for Unitech, with the Supreme Court examining how the company’s assets should be valued and sold and how the money should be distributed among stakeholders.

On May 27, the Supreme Court appointed PwC as an independent agency to examine competing proposals from the government-appointed board and lenders. PwC has been given a broad mandate to suggest ways to value and monetise Unitech’s assets, with the interests of homebuyers, lenders and the company to be protected. The matter is scheduled to come up again on September 30.

Buyers seek sale of unsold assets

Homebuyer associations have also called for Unitech’s unsold assets to be auctioned so that the proceeds can be used to complete stalled projects.

Vibha Batra, president of Espace Premiere Owners Association, said many buyers who booked homes in 2010-11 and were promised possession in 2013-14 are still waiting for their homes.

According to estimates cited by the associations, around ₹11,000-12,000 crore may now be needed to complete the stalled projects, while about ₹3,000 crore could be collected from existing customers. This suggests a funding gap of roughly ₹8,000-9,000 crore.

The associations have identified the lack of funds and the vacant CMD position as two major hurdles to completing projects.

Lenders have ₹15,000 crore claims

The funding challenge is complicated by the large claims made by Unitech’s lenders.

Eleven lenders have submitted claims totalling about ₹15,005 crore, while Unitech’s books show liabilities of around ₹14,130 crore. A large part of the difference between the two figures has to be reconciled.

The company’s books show that about ₹10,686 crore of its liability is in the form of interest and penal interest.

However, the government-appointed board has told the Supreme Court that the total loans actually disbursed were around ₹5,117 crore, of which ₹3,729 crore had already been repaid.

The board has also said that monetising unsold project and non-project assets will be critical to moving the stalled projects forward.

Completion cost has risen sharply

The financial challenge has grown significantly since the government-appointed board prepared its resolution framework in 2021.

At that time, the cost of completing all ring-fenced projects was estimated at around ₹5,005 crore, with another ₹500-1,000 crore required as priority funding.

The framework had estimated that ₹3,329 crore could still be collected from homebuyers and that unsold inventory was worth about ₹8,841 crore.

Homebuyer associations now estimate that ₹11,000-12,000 crore may be required for completion, indicating a sharp rise in the cost of finishing the projects over the past six years.

The 2021 framework covered 24,604 units across 49 residential projects. Of these, 20,547 units had been sold and 14,834 were awaiting delivery.

Projects continue to face delays

Unitech’s latest project-completion disclosure, updated on July 15, shows that 74 residential and 12 commercial projects have been identified for completion. Of these, 16 projects — 10 residential and six commercial — are marked as completed.

Several projects are still held up by regulatory approvals.

All 11 Kolkata projects have contracts awarded, but nine remain stalled because of building-plan renewal and validation issues. Four Chennai projects are awaiting environmental clearance and consent-to-establish approvals.

Two projects in Rewari are awaiting licence renewal, while Anthea Floors in Gurugram had to be re-tendered following delays in obtaining Supreme Court approval.

The company’s possession data shows that possession has been offered to 1,284 buyers across its projects. Of these, 1,007 buyers took possession between January 2020 and July 14, 2026.

In Noida’s Sector 117, six phases are still listed as work in progress. Work on a seventh phase has been awarded only for the basement, convenience shopping area and two towers, with construction yet to begin on the ground.

The homebuyers’ latest demand therefore comes against a backdrop of a large funding requirement, unresolved lender claims and continuing regulatory hurdles, making the appointment of a full-time leadership head a key concern for buyers as the Supreme Court considers the next phase of Unitech’s revival.

Also See: ED to Delhi HC: 42% of Jaypee homebuyers’ funds diverted to F1 track, hospital, and other ventures

The post Unitech homebuyers seek urgent appointment of CMD as projects remain stalled appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

The Bombay High Court has allowed Tata Capital to pursue arbitration proceedings and seek protection of assets against the personal guarantors of a borrower, holding that an amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) has ended the automatic interim moratorium for personal guarantors with effect from May 26, 2026.

The ruling, delivered on July 24 by Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, could have wider implications for lenders seeking recovery from personal guarantors while insolvency proceedings are pending against them.

The case involved Tata Capital Financial Services, now known as Tata Capital Ltd, and Neel Motors LLP, along with its individual partners and another LLP that had stood as guarantors. Tata Capital had extended financial assistance to Neel Motors under a channel finance agreement, with the other respondents providing guarantees.

Tata Capital had initiated corporate insolvency resolution proceedings (CIRP) against Neel Motors, which subsequently went into liquidation after the CIRP failed. It also filed insolvency applications under Section 95 of the IBC against three individual guarantors in June 2022. Under the then applicable Section 96, filing such an application triggered an interim moratorium, preventing continuation of proceedings against the individuals.

Amendment changes position for personal guarantors

The key issue before the court was the impact of the amendment to Section 96 of the IBC. A new sub-section, Section 96(4), was brought into force on May 26, 2026. It provides that the provisions of Section 96 would not apply where an application is filed to initiate insolvency resolution proceedings against a personal guarantor to a corporate debtor.

The respondents argued that the amendment could not apply to insolvency applications filed before May 26, 2026, as doing so would give it retrospective effect.

The High Court rejected this interpretation. It held that the expression “where an application is filed” includes applications that had already been filed and remained pending before the adjudicating authority when the amendment came into force.

According to the court, applying the amended provision to such pending applications is not retrospective. Instead, it is a prospective application of the new law to a situation that continued to exist after May 26, 2026.

The court consequently held that the moratorium under Section 96, insofar as it applied to the three personal guarantors, ceased to operate from May 26, 2026. The arbitration petition was therefore no longer barred by the IBC moratorium.

Lenders get room to pursue recovery

The ruling provides lenders with greater scope to pursue parallel remedies against personal guarantors once the Section 96 moratorium is no longer applicable.

The court noted that while insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor and recovery proceedings by a creditor may both ultimately seek recovery, the amended Section 96 is not dependent on who initiated the insolvency application.

In the present case, Tata Capital sought limited interim protection — disclosure of the guarantors’ movable and immovable assets and an injunction preventing them from selling, transferring, disposing of or encumbering those assets pending arbitration.

The court granted these reliefs and disposed of the petition, allowing the parties to take steps to commence arbitration.

The court also made clear that the relief was limited to protecting assets pending arbitration and did not amount to a final determination of the underlying claims.

Also See: Liquidator must get NCLT nod before starting legal proceedings, but defect can be cured

The post Bombay HC allows Tata Capital to pursue arbitration against personal guarantors after IBC moratorium ends appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a liquidator must obtain prior approval of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) before initiating legal proceedings on behalf of a company under liquidation, but proceedings started without such approval are not automatically void and can become effective once the approval is subsequently obtained.

The ruling came in a dispute between Tecpro Systems Ltd, which is under liquidation, and Reliance Infrastructure Ltd over an arbitration clause in a 2018 purchase order.

A division of the court held that the requirement under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for prior approval of the adjudicating authority is mandatory. The liquidator in the case had invoked arbitration against Reliance Infrastructure on March 10, 2022, but obtained NCLT approval only on December 23, 2022.

The court said the word “prior” in Section 33(5) makes it clear that NCLT approval must precede the initiation of legal proceedings. It also held that a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act constitutes commencement of arbitral proceedings.

However, the court drew a distinction between a mandatory requirement and the consequence of failing to comply with it. Unlike Section 28 of the IBC, which expressly makes certain actions taken without the required approval void, Section 33(5) does not prescribe that legal proceedings initiated without prior approval are void ab initio.

The court therefore held that proceedings initiated without prior NCLT permission remain ineffective until the required approval is granted. Once approval is obtained, the proceedings are treated as having commenced from the date of the approval.

In the Tecpro case, the court treated the arbitration notice as having become effective from December 23, 2022, the date on which NCLT approval was granted. It said requiring the liquidator to issue a fresh notice could create limitation issues and would not serve the purpose of Section 33(5).

The court consequently appointed former Kerala High Court Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between Tecpro Systems and Reliance Infrastructure arising from their agreement.

The judgment provides an important clarification for companies in liquidation and their creditors: while liquidators cannot bypass the NCLT before pursuing legal claims, a failure to obtain approval beforehand does not necessarily destroy the underlying claim. Instead, the legal process remains ineffective until the tribunal grants the required permission.

Also See: IBBI flags misuse of insolvency process to settle debts, evade liabilities

The post Liquidator must get NCLT nod before starting legal proceedings, but defect can be cured: Bombay HC appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.