No final order has been passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in the personal insolvency case against Essel Group Chairman Subhash Chandra over claims of over Rs 22,000 crore, as its two-member bench on Monday failed to reach a majority verdict due to an independent opinion by the third member.

According to a report by PTI yesterday from New Delhi, the matter has been sent to the NCLT president again following the difference of opinion. The President may appoint a third member or issue an order himself to reach a majority view.

Earlier, the four-year-old personal insolvency matter of Chandra had been referred to a Third member, as the two-member division bench of Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj, Member (Judicial), and Reena Sinha Puri, Member (Technical), gave a split verdict.

The third member, in its 144-page order on August 25, stamped a Rs 6.5 crore payment by the Essel Group chairman against creditor claims of about Rs 22,006.57 crore in his personal insolvency resolution process, with a nearly 99.97 percent haircut.
As per the procedure, the third member’s order was sent back to the original division bench for a formal order in line with the majority opinion, as required under Section 419 (5) of the Companies Act, 2013.
In an order passed yesterday, the division bench of Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj, Member (Judicial), and Reena Sinha Puri, Member (Technical), said no majority view had emerged despite reconsidering the matter, following a differing opinion from a third Member of the tribunal, and referred the matter back to the NCLT president, the PTI report added.
The bench said that the “third Member consciously passed an independent order. Thus, no majority view emerges” and hence “no order can be passed at this stage”.”While Member (Technical) rejected the plan, the Member (Judicial) confined the plan to those who accepted and approved it and accorded liberty to dissenting creditors to recover their debt.

“He did not extinguish the claim of banks/financial institutions/dissenting creditors qua principal debtor/debtor/PG. The Third Member approved the plan but extinguished the right of all the creditors by applying Section 115(1) of the Code uniformly,” it said.
“All said and done, no majority view has emerged in the matter. In the wake, no order can be passed at this stage. Resultantly, we have no option but to make fresh reference to the President in terms of the provisions of Section 419(5) of the Code,” it said.
The dispute, according to the PTI report, arose over interpretation of Section 79(2)(g) of the IBC and its interplay with the procedural provisions of Section 115(1), which deals with approval of a repayment plan by creditors.