Reliance Group has rejected allegations made by Essel Group chairman Subhash Chandra against media entities associated with the conglomerate, describing his remarks as “baseless.” The response comes amid an escalating dispute over coverage of Chandra’s personal insolvency proceedings, after the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approved a repayment plan involving admitted claims of about ₹22,006 crore.
Chandra has accused Reliance-linked media platforms of presenting what he described as a misleading narrative about his debt and the insolvency case. He also revived allegations connected to the earlier Zee Entertainment-Invesco dispute. Reliance denied the allegations against its media businesses, saying its brands have never been used to attack anyone and would not be used for such purposes.
Reliance Rejects Subhash Chandra’s Allegations
In a statement issued on August 28, Reliance Group said it was “dismayed” by Chandra’s remarks and strongly denied the allegations and insinuations concerning its media entities.
The group said its media brands had never been used to target individuals and would not be used for that purpose in the future. Reliance also said it continues to hold Chandra in high regard as a businessman and entrepreneur and wished him well.
Reliance’s Response At A Glance
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Company responding | Reliance Group |
| Person making allegations | Subhash Chandra |
| Chandra’s position | Chairman, Essel Group |
| Main issue | Coverage by Reliance-linked media |
| Reliance’s characterization | Baseless |
| Media allegation | Platforms used to target / attack Chandra |
| Reliance’s response | Strong denial |
| Related legal issue | Chandra’s personal insolvency case |
| NCLT admitted claims | About ₹22,006 crore |
| Proposed personal contribution | ₹6.25 crore |
Reliance has not sought to address every individual allegation made by Chandra. Instead, its public statement has focused on categorically rejecting the claims involving its media businesses.
What Did Subhash Chandra Allege?
Chandra recently released a video message in which he directly addressed Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani.
He accused Reliance-linked media outlets of promoting what he called “wrong propaganda” against him and the Essel Group. His comments were made in the context of reporting around his personal insolvency proceedings and the size of the claims admitted against him.
Chandra also questioned how the ₹22,000-crore-plus figure associated with the insolvency proceedings was being presented.
His argument is that the amount does not represent money he personally borrowed. Rather, the claims relate to personal guarantees he provided for borrowings by companies associated with the Essel Group.
Chandra’s Position On The Debt Figure
| Issue | Chandra’s Position |
|---|---|
| Reported admitted claims | About ₹22,006 crore |
| Personal borrowing | Says he did not personally borrow this amount |
| Role | Personal guarantor |
| Claims cited by objectors | About ₹3,992 crore |
| Underlying borrowers | Essel/Zee-linked companies |
| Main concern | How the liability has been portrayed publicly |
The distinction between being a borrower and being a personal guarantor is important when interpreting the numbers surrounding the insolvency case.
Why The ₹22,006 Crore Figure Matters
The controversy intensified after the NCLT approved a repayment plan covering admitted claims of approximately ₹22,006 crore.
Under the plan, Chandra would contribute around ₹6.25 crore from his personal assets, while additional funds are expected from the underlying corporate borrowers.
The difference between the admitted claims and the proposed payment has attracted considerable attention from lenders and the wider business community.
Subhash Chandra Insolvency Numbers
| Metric | Amount |
|---|---|
| Admitted claims | ~₹22,006 crore |
| Proposed contribution by Chandra | ₹6.25 crore |
| Process costs | ₹25 lakh |
| Recovery from Chandra vs admitted claims | Extremely small |
| Additional expected contribution from corporate borrowers | ~₹1,494 crore |
| Claims cited by dissenting creditors | ~₹22,006.57 crore |
| Claims Chandra says are against him | ~₹3,992 crore |
The ₹22,006 crore figure represents admitted claims in the insolvency proceedings and should not automatically be interpreted as ₹22,000 crore personally borrowed by Chandra. The underlying liabilities are connected to guarantees he provided for corporate borrowings.
NCLT Approves ₹6.5 Crore Settlement
The Delhi bench of the NCLT recently approved a resolution plan for Chandra’s personal insolvency case.
The tribunal had initially produced a split verdict between two members. A third member, Nilesh Sharma, was subsequently appointed to resolve the difference of opinion and approved the repayment plan.
Under the approved plan, approximately ₹6.25 crore would be contributed toward creditors, with another ₹25 lakh allocated toward insolvency-process costs.
The decision has triggered objections from several financial institutions.
Lenders Prepare To Challenge The NCLT Order
HDFC Bank and LIC Housing Finance are among lenders preparing to challenge the NCLT decision.
The lenders have questioned the extremely low recovery under the plan and have raised concerns about the resolution process and the assessment of Chandra’s assets and liabilities.
Other lenders, including Axis Bank, Canara Bank, RBL Bank and Union Bank, have also been identified among creditors that opposed the plan.
The Creditor Dispute
Admitted claims
~₹22,006 crore
│
▼
NCLT-approved plan
│
├── Chandra contribution: ₹6.25 crore
│
├── Process costs: ₹0.25 crore
│
└── Expected corporate borrower contribution: ~₹1,494 crore
│
▼
Lenders object
│
▼
Potential NCLAT challenge
The lenders’ challenge means the insolvency dispute may continue even after the NCLT’s approval.
Why Chandra Disputes The Debt Narrative
Chandra has argued that the reported ₹22,000-crore figure creates the impression that he personally borrowed that amount.
According to his statement, the claims arose because he had provided personal guarantees for loans taken by companies linked to the Essel Group.
He has said that the borrowing entities have already repaid around ₹43,000 crore and that some additional liabilities are expected to be settled by the underlying companies.
He has also said that the total claim against him as a personal guarantor, according to the creditors objecting to the plan, is around ₹3,992 crore rather than ₹22,000 crore.
The competing figures reflect different ways of describing the underlying corporate liabilities, guarantees and admitted claims in the insolvency proceedings.
The Zee-Invesco Dispute Returns To The Spotlight
Chandra’s latest criticism is not limited to the insolvency case.
He also revived the corporate dispute surrounding Zee Entertainment and investor Invesco, which became one of the most closely watched shareholder battles in India’s media industry.
In 2021, Invesco sought changes to Zee’s board and pushed for the appointment of additional directors. The dispute later became connected with discussions involving Reliance over a possible transaction involving Zee’s media businesses.
The proposed Reliance transaction did not ultimately proceed.
Zee subsequently pursued a merger with Sony, but Sony terminated the proposed transaction in January 2024 after the two sides failed to resolve certain conditions and disputes.
Chandra has now brought aspects of that earlier corporate battle back into the public debate over his treatment by Reliance-linked media.
Zee-Invesco Timeline
| Period | Development |
|---|---|
| 2019 | Earlier corporate tensions involving Zee and potential strategic transactions |
| 2021 | Invesco pushes for changes to Zee’s board |
| 2021 | Reliance explores potential transaction involving Zee |
| 2022-23 | Zee-Sony merger process advances |
| January 2024 | Sony terminates Zee merger |
| August 2026 | Chandra revives earlier dispute while criticizing media coverage |
The historical dispute provides context for the personal and corporate tensions that have resurfaced in Chandra’s latest statements.
Reliance Says Its Media Brands Are Independent Of Personal Attacks
Reliance’s response has been categorical.
The group said its media brands have never been used to attack anyone and will not be used for such purposes.
That statement is significant because Reliance has a substantial media presence following the expansion of its broadcasting and digital-media businesses.
The group has interests across television, news, digital content and entertainment, making questions about editorial coverage and corporate ownership particularly sensitive.
Reliance has therefore sought to draw a clear distinction between its media operations and the allegations made by Chandra.
The Dispute Comes At A Sensitive Time For Zee
The latest exchange comes while Zee Entertainment remains under pressure from the broader fallout of its failed merger with Sony and challenges in its business.
Zee’s share price fell 2.05% to ₹101.85 on August 28, while Reliance Industries gained 0.37% to ₹1,287, according to market data cited by Business Standard.
The contrasting stock movements do not establish a direct market reaction to the dispute, but they show that both companies remain closely watched by investors.
What Happens Next In Chandra’s Insolvency Case?
The insolvency process is not necessarily over.
The NCLT matter is expected to return to the original division bench for issuance of a formal order in accordance with the majority opinion following the third member’s decision.
Meanwhile, lenders including HDFC Bank and LIC Housing Finance are preparing to challenge the decision before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
That means the final outcome could still change depending on appellate proceedings.
Key Issues To Watch
| Issue | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| NCLT formal order | Completes the tribunal process |
| NCLAT challenge | Could reopen the settlement |
| Creditor recovery | Central concern for lenders |
| Personal guarantee claims | Determines Chandra’s liability |
| Corporate borrower repayments | Could affect overall recovery |
| Reliance media allegations | Reliance has issued a categorical denial |
| Zee-related disputes | Could remain part of the wider corporate narrative |
The Bigger Picture
The confrontation between Reliance Group and Subhash Chandra is unfolding at the intersection of media ownership, corporate history and a high-profile personal insolvency case. Chandra has objected to the way his ₹22,006-crore-plus admitted claims have been portrayed and has accused Reliance-linked media entities of pushing a misleading narrative. Reliance has rejected those allegations as baseless and said its media brands have never been used to attack anyone.
The financial dispute itself remains significant because the NCLT-approved plan would see Chandra contribute only ₹6.25 crore toward admitted claims of about ₹22,006 crore, while additional recovery is expected from corporate borrowers. Lenders including HDFC Bank and LIC Housing Finance are preparing challenges, meaning the legal process could continue. At the same time, Chandra’s attempt to distinguish personal-guarantor liabilities from personal borrowing has added another layer to the debate over how the case is being reported and understood.
Looking Ahead
The immediate focus will be on the next stage of the insolvency proceedings and the potential appeals by dissenting lenders. If the NCLAT takes up the matter, questions around Chandra’s assets, the treatment of personal guarantees, creditor recovery and the resolution professional’s assessment could receive further scrutiny. The outcome could also influence how future personal-guarantor insolvency cases involving large corporate groups are evaluated.
The Reliance-Chandra media dispute is likely to remain separate from the legal merits of the insolvency case unless new evidence or proceedings connect the two. For now, the two sides have stated sharply different positions: Chandra says Reliance-linked media coverage has unfairly portrayed his financial liabilities, while Reliance categorically denies using its media businesses to target him. With the insolvency settlement facing potential lender challenges, the controversy is likely to remain in the spotlight.
Get the day’s top stories in your inbox
One concise email. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
