"Indian Debt Resolution": Vijay Mallya On Subhash Chandra's 99.97% Debt Haircut

Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallaya sent in his mock "congratulations" after the National Company Law Tribunal, or NCLT, cleared a repayment plan that grants Zee Group founder Subhash Chandra to pay just Rs 6.5 crore to settle admitted creditor claims of about Rs 22,006.57 crore, translating into a haircut of nearly 99.97 per cent for lenders.

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.

The decision has put the spotlight on one of the most striking personal insolvency cases involving the media baron.

"If True many congratulations to my friend Subhash. Banks and Government have admitted having recovered Rs 14,100 crores from me against a Judgement debt of Rs 6203 crores. Many more borrowers have settled at a fraction. Indian Debt Resolution Justice I presume. No media questions," Mallya said, thumbing his nose at the order.

In December 2025, Mallya, who is wanted in India over a default of Rs 9,000 crore that was loaned to erstwhile Kingfisher Airlines (KFA) by several banks, had questioned the Central government and public sector banks over what he described as inconsistent statements on the amounts recovered from him, and demanded the appointment of a retired judge to investigate the matter.

Mallya said the government and banks were presenting conflicting figures in Parliament and to the public.

Taking a swipe at Subhash Chandra's Rs 6.5 crore payout to settle Rs 22,006 crore dues, the Congress said this makes a "complete mockery" of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Earlier, the two members of the NCLT had given a split verdict, after which the president of the forum appointed Nilesh Sharma as the third member amid the difference of opinion.

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

In its 144-page-long order, Sharma 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.