Subscribe
Subscribe
- Latest Legal News
- News
- Law Firms
- Columns
- Interviews
- Law School
- Legal Jobs
- हिंदी
- ಕನ್ನಡ
A proposal by Zee Group founder Subhash Chandra to pay ₹6.25 crore against admitted claims of ₹22,006.57 crore has put the scale of haircuts under India’s insolvency law back in focus.
The proposed recovery of 0.03%, amounting to a 99.97% haircut, drew further attention on Tuesday when a five-member National Company Law Tribunal bench stayed the verdict approving the plan and decided to hear the case afresh.
However, it is not the highest percentage haircut recorded under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). At least two corporate insolvencies have yielded even lower recoveries relative to admitted claims.
While corporate insolvencies have seen success in recoveries in the past, personal insolvencies have been largely futile in Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India 's (IBBI) own admission.
The IBBI's April-June 2026 newsletter states:
“In cases where repayment plans have been approved, the creditors have realised Rs. 234.56 crore, which is around 1% of their admitted claims.”
Here are ten of the steepest haircuts in corporate and personal-guarantor insolvencies involving admitted claims of at least ₹500 crore. The calculations use total admitted claims and the amount realisable by creditors. The IBBI does not publish a combined corporate and personal-insolvency ranking.
Claims: ₹581.81 crore | Recovery: ₹8 lakh
Reliance Commercial Finance initiated insolvency proceedings against Accura Productions Private Limited. The Mumbai Bench of the NCLT admitted the company to insolvency in July 2024.
The company had been incorporated in 2018 with paid-up capital of ₹1 lakh. Creditors were provided only ₹8 lakh against claims exceeding ₹581 crore.
The resolution professional for the company was represented by Fortis India Law. The order does not identify the individual advocates who appeared.
Claims: ₹648.67 crore | Recovery: ₹9 lakh
Thwink Big Content was admitted to insolvency in July 2024. Its resolution plan, submitted by Micro Capitals, was approved with 94.67 percent of the creditors’ vote.
The plan’s total outlay was ₹21 lakh. Of this, ₹12 lakh was earmarked for insolvency costs and ₹9 lakh for creditors. The company’s fair and liquidation values were recorded at just ₹80,026.
The resolution professional was represented by TAP Legal. The order does not identify the individual advocates who appeared.
Claims: ₹22,006.57 crore | Proposed creditor payment: ₹6.25 crore
Subhash Chandra’s case concerns his personal guarantees for loans taken by Essel Group companies, not the insolvency of a corporate borrower.
His repayment plan proposed ₹6.25 crore for creditors and ₹25 lakh towards insolvency-process costs. The creditor payout amounted to a recovery of about 0.028% and a proposed haircut of approximately 99.972%.
The plan secured 80.81% of the creditors’ vote. However, the original two-member NCLT Bench delivered differing opinions. Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj favoured approval only for assenting creditors, while Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri rejected the plan. Third Member Nilesh Sharma subsequently approved it and held that it would bind all creditors.
On August 31, the original Bench held that no majority opinion had emerged because all three members had taken materially different positions.
On September 1, a five-member NCLT Bench stayed Sharma’s August 25 ruling and decided to hear the case afresh. It issued notice to the parties and restrained Chandra from directly or indirectly alienating any property.
The proposed haircut has therefore not attained finality. Chandra’s case should no longer be presented as an approved or settled insolvency plan in the ranking.
Claims: ₹5,403.02 crore | Recovery: ₹2.20 crore
XL Energy, formerly XL Telecom and Energy, operated in the telecom and solar-energy sectors. Invent Assets Securitisation and Reconstruction initiated its insolvency in 2023.
The Hyderabad Bench of the NCLT approved a plan submitted by a consortium led by Karishma Jain in April 2024. Creditors recovered about 0.04 percent of their claims.
The resolution professional was represented by Advocate Amir Bavani.
Claims: ₹683.42 crore | Recovery: ₹37 lakh
Punjab National Bank initiated insolvency proceedings against Jaihind Infra Tech Projects before the Ahmedabad Bench of the NCLT.
The company’s liquidation value was assessed at ₹34 lakh. Its resolution plan produced ₹37 lakh for creditors, marginally more than liquidation value but only 0.054 percent of admitted claims.
The NCLT’s attendance sheet records that no one appeared for the parties when the resolution-plan order was pronounced.
Claims: About ₹1,051 crore | Recovery: ₹1.05 crore
The company was part of the wider Anil Ambani-led Reliance Group. Axis Trustee Services, acting for Franklin Templeton, had secured claims of approximately ₹496.36 crore. JC Flowers Asset Reconstruction Company had unsecured claims of around ₹518.87 crore.
The plan provided ₹83.2 lakh to the secured creditor and ₹20.8 lakh to the unsecured creditor. It was approved unanimously.
The resolution professional was represented by Advocates Saurabh Bachhawat and Nishant Sogani. The successful resolution applicant was represented by Advocate Deep Roy.
Claims: ₹1,980.37 crore | Recovery: ₹5.26 crore
Eastern Sugar & Industries was admitted to insolvency by the Kolkata Bench of the NCLT in February 2022.
The NCLT approved its resolution plan in October 2023. Creditors recovered around 0.27 percent of admitted claims. The company subsequently cancelled and allotted shares in accordance with the approved plan.
The resolution professional was represented by Advocates Shaunak Mitra and A Das. The successful resolution applicant was represented by Advocates K Thakkar, S Das and A Mondal.
Claims: ₹5,368.17 crore | Recovery: ₹15 crore
Zion Steel was part of the Adhunik Group. Its insolvency was connected with that of Adhunik Metaliks.
The NCLT approved Liberty House Group’s resolution plan for Zion Steel.
Liberty House offered ₹15 crore as full and final payment to Zion Steel’s financial creditors. It had already deposited ₹5 crore and was directed by the NCLAT to deposit the remaining ₹10 crore, apart from the insolvency-resolution costs. The IBBI records ₹5,367.02 crore in financial-creditor claims and ₹1.15 crore in operational-creditor claims, with no recovery for operational creditors.
The ₹15 crore recovery against total admitted claims of ₹5,368.17 crore represents a recovery of 0.279% and a haircut of 99.721%.
At NCLAT, Liberty House was represented by Senior Advocates Virendra Ganda and Rajiv Ranjan, along with Advocates Arvind Kumar Gupta, Henna George and Areeca Sanjay Massey.
Senior Advocate Joy Saha appeared for the Committee of Creditors. Advocate Vivek Mohanty represented the workers’ union.
Claims: About ₹1,000 crore | Recovery: ₹3.51 crore
Reliance Big, another company associated with the Anil Ambani-led Reliance Group, owned a wind-energy generator and land parcels in Tamil Nadu.
Secured financial creditors had admitted claims of approximately ₹483.71 crore. The resolution plan provided around ₹3.5 crore to them. Calculated against the claims of all creditors, the recovery was approximately 0.35 percent.
The order records Advocates Saurabh Bachhawat, Pooja Mahajan, Nishant Sogani and Shrishti Agnihotri of Chandhiok & Mahajan for the applicant/SRA.
Advocates Deep Roy, Rishi Badraj and Dhawal S appeared for the respondent/RP.
Claims: ₹33,331.13 crore | Recovery: ₹136.25 crore
Lanco Thermal Power was the holding company for several Lanco Group power assets. Andhra Bank initiated its insolvency, and its committee of creditors comprised 21 banks and financial institutions.
The NCLT approved a composite plan involving different groups of assets in April 2021. Significantly, the company’s liquidation value was ₹131.85 crore. The plan therefore produced more than the liquidation value despite a 99.59 percent haircut against admitted claims.
Senior Advocate S Ravi, assisted by Advocate Vimal Varma Vasireddy, represented the resolution professional.
Senior Standing Counsel Kiranmayee, assisted by Advocate J V Prasad, appeared for the Income Tax Department.
A review of reported appellate orders shows that none of the ten plan approvals has been finally set aside by the NCLAT.
In Zion Steel, the NCLAT instead revived the approved plan after setting aside a subsequent liquidation order.
In XL Energy, the Supreme Court temporarily halted a consequential direction for relisting the company’s shares, without disturbing the resolution plan itself.