A five-member bench of the National Company Law Tribunal on Tuesday stayed the approval of a repayment plan under which media baron Subhash Chandra was allowed to pay Rs 6.2 crore to creditors against admitted claims of about Rs 22,006 crore in his personal insolvency resolution process, reported Bar and Bench.On August 25, National Company Law Tribunal Member (Judicial) Nilesh Sharma approved the repayment plan that would have translated into a haircut of approximately 99.9%.The tribunal is a quasi-judicial body that deals with corporate insolvency and company-law disputes.In finance, when a creditor is owed a certain amount of money but the debtor only repays a portion of it, the percentage of the write-off is known as a “haircut”.Since 2022, Chandra has been the subject of insolvency proceedings filed by Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, now known as Sammaan Capital.Chandra had stood as a personal guarantor for a Rs 170 crore loan given to a firm, Vivek Infracon. After the loan turned bad, Indiabulls moved the National Company Law Tribunal in 2022 under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for insolvency proceedings against Chandra. The plea was admitted in 2024.Chandra was a Rajya Sabha MP between 2016 and 2022. He was elected to the Upper House as an Independent candidate backed by the Bharatiya Janata Party.On Tuesday, Chandra was also restrained from dealing with or transferring his properties, reported Live Law.The order was passed by the newly constituted five-member bench, headed by the tribunal’s president Justice Anupinder Singh.The five-member bench also held that no clear majority exists regarding the previous verdict, reported Bar and Bench.Staying the order, it decided to hear the matter afresh and issued notices to all the respondents.The original two-member bench of the tribunal hearing the matter had delivered a split verdict on the repayment plan, after which Sharma was appointed as the third member to resolve the difference of opinion.After his August 25 verdict, the two-member bench noted that he had passed an independent order rather than resolving the specific points of disagreement, reported Live Law.Edited by Tanya Shrivastava.