New Delhi, Aug 2026 : HDFC Bank on Thursday said it is considering an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against an NCLT order approving a repayment plan that gives creditors a nearly 99.97 per cent haircut on admitted dues of around Rs 22,006 crore owed by Essel Group founder Subhash Chandra.
The bank said its admitted claim represented only 3.2 per cent of the total amount involved in the insolvency proceedings. It also clarified that the loan facility in question was originally extended by HDFC Limited and was subsequently inherited by HDFC Bank following the merger of the two entities.
“With regard to the referred NCLT matter, HDFC Bank's admitted claim was only 3.2 per cent of the total stated amount. The Bank inherited this facility, which was previously provided by HDFC Limited,” an HDFC Bank spokesperson said.
“The Bank is exploring filing an appeal at the NCLAT,” the spokesperson added, noting that the facility had already been provided for and became part of HDFC Bank’s portfolio following the merger.
The development follows an order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which approved a personal insolvency resolution plan under which Chandra would pay approximately Rs 6.5 crore against admitted creditor claims of about Rs 22,006.57 crore.
The repayment represents only a fraction of the total outstanding amount, resulting in a haircut of almost 99.97 per cent for the creditors.
LIC Housing Finance (LICHFL), one of the creditors, had strongly opposed the proposal. According to the NCLT order, LICHFL had an admitted claim of Rs 1,322.39 crore, while the repayment proposed to it was only Rs 38.09 lakh, equivalent to approximately 0.028 per cent of its admitted dues.
LICHFL argued that such a negligible recovery could not justify approval of the resolution plan.
The matter came before a third member of the NCLT after the tribunal’s original two-member bench delivered a split verdict over the repayment proposal. NCLT Member (Judicial) Nilesh Sharma was subsequently appointed as the third member to resolve the difference of opinion.
Sharma approved the resolution plan under Section 114 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), rejecting objections raised by lenders who argued that the proposed recovery was too small to warrant approval.
The dissenting creditors, led by LIC Housing Finance, had described the proposed payout as “unviable and unlawful”. They argued that against admitted claims of around Rs 22,006.57 crore, the plan offered creditors only Rs 6.25 crore, along with Rs 25 lakh towards process-related costs.
The tribunal’s decision has now prompted HDFC Bank to consider challenging the order before the appellate tribunal.
The case highlights the sharp differences between creditors and the resolution process over the extent of recovery available under personal insolvency proceedings. While the approved plan provides a route for resolution, lenders have questioned whether the exceptionally low repayment adequately protects their interests.
Any appeal by HDFC Bank before the NCLAT could therefore put the repayment plan under further scrutiny and potentially reopen questions surrounding the recovery proposed for creditors.
(Disclaimer :The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the Mavericknews30 team.)
