The Congress on Thursday (August 27, 2026) took a swipe at the insolvency tribunal NCLT clearing businessman Subhash Chandra’s ₹6.5 crore payout to settle ₹22,006 crore dues, saying this is not just a haircut but a “mundan” that makes a “complete mockery” of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

There was no immediate reaction from Mr. Chandra or his group.

The insolvency tribunal NCLT has approved a repayment plan under which the media baron will pay just ₹6.5 crore to settle admitted creditor claims of about ₹22,006.57 crore in his personal insolvency resolution process, translating into a haircut of nearly 99.97% for lenders.

NCLT Member (Judicial) Nilesh Sharma, ruling as a third member, on Tuesday approved the plan under Section 114 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), rejecting objections by lenders that the recovery was too meagre to merit approval.

Reacting to the development, Congress MP Jairam Ramesh said, “In finance terminology, when creditors are owed money and the debtor repays only part of it, the difference expressed as a percentage is called a haircut.”

“This is not just a haircut. It is actually a mundan and makes a completely mockery of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016,” Mr. Ramesh said on X.

Earlier, the two members of the National Company Law Tribunal had given a split verdict, after which the president of the forum appointed Mr. Sharma as the third member amid the difference of opinion.

Mr. Sharma rejected the claims of the dissenting creditors led by LIC Housing Finance, which had argued that the payout was “unviable and unlawful”.

It had contended that against admitted claims of approximately ₹22,006.57 crore, the repayment plan proposed the payment of only ₹6.25 crore to creditors and ₹25 lakhs towards process costs.

“In the case of LICHFL, whose admitted claim stood at ₹1,322.39 crore, the proposed repayment was merely ₹38,09,294, amounting to approximately 0.028% of its admitted dues. It was contended that such a negligible repayment could not receive the approval of this tribunal,” said the NCLT order recording its submission.

Further, the repayment plan itself treated even the proposed amount of Rs 6.5 crore as merely indicative and not certain, rendering the plan tentative, non-definitive, and incapable of approval.

However, the NCLT held that the objecting creditors together held less than 20 per cent of the voting share, while the plan had been approved by the required number of vote shares — 80.81% share.

Sharma, in its 144-page-long order, said the resolution professional’s valuation showed Chandra’s personal estate was worth significantly less than the amount offered under the plan, and that dissenting creditors were unlikely to recover more by rejecting it, since he would then face bankruptcy rather than being able to pay from a position of financial recovery.

“If the plan is approved and the debtor’s insolvency is resolved, putting him back on his feet, the objectors would ultimately stand a better chance of recovering their debts directly from the Principal Debtors,” the NCLT observed.

The tribunal held that its role was not to substitute its own commercial wisdom for that of the creditors or to assess whether the settlement amount was adequate.