Canara Bank, in its appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), has pointed to what it says is a contradiction in Dr Subhash Chandra’s stand. The ₹1,260-crore sale of a 2.8-acre Bhagwan Das Road property raises a larger question about Subhash Chandra’s claim that his personal estate is worth only around ₹31.8 crore and that he has little left to offer creditors. In his response to Canara Bank, Chandra said the property belonged to Greatway Estates Ltd and not to him, and that he neither sold it nor received the sale proceeds. Yet his own repayment plan says he had “procured” Greatway Estates to sell the property and use ₹774 crore of the proceeds to discharge liabilities of the principal borrowers and the personal guarantor.As of now, the specific NCLT order Canara Bank appealed against has itself been stayed by a larger NCLT bench, and both the NCLT (fresh hearing) and the NCLAT (the pending appeal) have live proceedings running in parallel.Chandra said that it is owned by Greatway Estates Ltd and mortgaged to JC Flowers Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. He argued that Canara Bank’s application rested on “an unverified media report” and that the allegation he had sold the property or received any consideration was “baseless and unsupported by any factual foundation.”The Tribunal accepted this position. It held that a newspaper report, without independent documentary evidence establishing ownership, sale or receipt of money, could not by itself justify a forensic enquiry, and it declined to take the matter further.Canara Bank’s appeal argues this denial cannot be squared with Chandra’s own repayment plan, the document he himself submitted to the resolution professional setting out how he proposed to settle with his creditors. The appeal quotes that plan directly: it records that “the Personal Guarantor has procured” that Greatway Estates “will sell the property at 4, Bhagwan Das Road” and use the proceeds “for payment of ₹774 crore” toward releasing shares pledged to World Crest Advisors LLP, one of the creditor entities that voted in favour of his repayment plan.The bank’s case is that this is, in effect, an admission in his own hand: a person who has “procured” a company to sell its most valuable asset and has personally directed hundreds of crores of the proceeds cannot also claim to have no connection to that asset. The appeal calls this “absolute, de facto authority” over the company, and adds two further points: that Greatway Estates has a paid-up capital of only ₹5 lakh, and that its registered administrative email address is on the Essel Group’s domain, both cited by the bank as signs that Greatway is not the independent entity Chandra described it as.Chandra’s position through the insolvency proceedings so far has been that the company, and not he personally, owned and sold the property, and that no sale proceeds passed through his hands. The bank’s fresh argument, that his own repayment plan contradicts that position, is now before the NCLAT, which has yet to rule on it.Since Canara Bank’s appeal was filed, the case has taken a fresh turn at the NCLT. A newly constituted five-member Special Bench of the NCLT, headed by NCLT President Justice (retd) Anupinder Singh Grewal, stayed the Third Member’s 25 August order approving Chandra’s repayment plan. The bench held that under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, there was no clear majority view among the three members who had earlier considered the matter, so the Third Member’s opinion could not be given effect.The five-member bench also directed that Chandra “shall not alienate any assets whatsoever either directly or indirectly,” and set the next hearing for September 23, 2026, where it will examine the repayment plan afresh.Separately, at the NCLAT, where Canara Bank’s appeal is pending, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the dissenting lenders, initially asked the appellate tribunal to dispose of the appeal in light of the NCLT’s stay, but Chandra’s counsel opposed this, citing reputational harm from the proceedings continuing.Mehta then withdrew the request, and the NCLAT kept the appeal pending, adjourning it to October 7, 2026.Published on September 6, 2026