Subhash Chandra hoped that the lenders would discuss the matter with the borrowers, reconcile the outstanding accounts, and get paid by the borrowers.
Dissenting lenders have alleged that five entities linked to Essel Group founder Subhash Chandra's family together controlled 61.78 per cent of the voting share and were instrumental in pushing through his personal insolvency resolution plan, which proposes to pay just Rs 6.5 crore against admitted creditor claims of about Rs 22,006.57 crore.
Key Points
- Dissenting lenders alleged that five entities linked to Subhash Chandra's family wrongly voted on his personal insolvency resolution plan.
- The disputed votes helped the repayment plan secure approval despite offering about Rs 6.5 crore against admitted claims of around Rs 22,006.57 crore.
- HDFC Bank and Canara Bank have said they will challenge the NCLT order before the appellate tribunal.
- Chandra said borrowers had assured him they would reconcile accounts with lenders and settle outstanding dues.
Voting Share Dispute
The lenders contended that the five entities were associates or related parties of Chandra and should have been barred from voting on the repayment plan.
Their votes helped the plan secure an overall 80.81 per cent approval in the committee of creditors, according to a 144-page order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
Chandra issued a third statement on Sunday on his personal guarantees and lender claims.
According to it, Chandra had signed personal guarantees amounting to Rs 22,000 crore.
The remaining guarantees were signed after the defaults, and he accepted responsibility for the guarantees he had signed.
The statement detailed claims filed by lenders in the personal insolvency proceedings initiated by Indiabulls Housing Finance before NCLT.
Chandra Defends Guarantees
'Against a payable amount of Rs 998 crore, claims filed were Rs 5,311 crore,' Chandra said.
'Afterwards, reducing the settled/paid claims of Rs 1,049 crore. Remaining Rs 4,262 crore. (Amounts differ from the press statement given earlier of Rs 3,992 crore and Rs 4,262 crore because some accounts were not taken as they neither voted for nor against).'
The five entities are Veena Investments, Direct Media Distribution Ventures, World Crest Advisors LLP, Lemonade Capital Advisors LLP, and Corpcall Capital Advisers LLP.
HDFC Bank Plans Appeal
Dissenting lenders led by HDFC Bank and IDBI Trusteeship Services, representing Edelweiss and Franklin Templeton funds, argued that the five entities fell within the definition of 'associates' under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and that their votes should not have been counted.
HDFC Bank, with 3.2 per cent of the total claim amount, has already said it is considering an appeal against NCLT's order.
Another dissenting lender, Canara Bank, too said that it is filing an appeal with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal against the NCLT order.
NCLT Order Under Fire
Chandra said in his statement that he had discussed the matter with all borrowers and that they had assured him that they would settle the Rs 4,262 crore after reconciling their accounts with lenders and settle and pay the balance.
He also said that there was substantial borrowing from other sources, including foreign funds, domestic funds, non-banking financial companies, and corporates.
'Most of these were or are being settled by the borrowers. Remaining either have adequate assets or are going to be paid,' he added in the statement.
Chandra also hoped that the lenders would discuss the matter with the borrowers, reconcile the outstanding accounts, and get paid by the borrowers.
Feature Presentation: Ashish Narsale/Rediff
