India’s premier investigative agency has launched a criminal probe into media baron Subhash Chandra, marking a dramatic escalation in his financial and legal woes. On Saturday, 5 September 2026, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a First Information Report (FIR) against the Essel Group Chairman. The agency accuses him of inflating his personal net worth to secure massive loans from public-sector lender LIC Housing Finance Limited (LICHFL), which later went into default. The collapse of these loans has reportedly caused a loss of over Rs 1,322 crore to the taxpayer-backed lender.

This criminal investigation plunges Chandra into deeper waters. It comes just as his ongoing battles in civil insolvency tribunals reach a boiling point. Earlier in the week, a newly formed five-member bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) barred Chandra from selling or transferring his personal assets. It also stayed a controversial repayment plan that would have let him settle a staggering Rs 22,006 crore in personal debt for a mere Rs 6.5 crore. LICHFL is one of the dissenting public lenders that has been fiercely fighting this repayment plan in court.

Audacious net-worth certificates under scanner

According to LICHFL's official complaint, which has been incorporated directly into the CBI's FIR, Chandra submitted fraudulent net-worth certificates to secure two major loans totalling Rs 980 crore. The state-backed lender was led to believe that the media baron was backed by a multi-thousand-crore personal fortune.

The first loan was a Rs 500-crore facility granted to Vasant Sagar Properties Private Limited, with Pan India Infra Projects Private Limited acting as a co-borrower. This was sanctioned as a home-entity loan for takeover, top-up, and business expansion. It was secured by a personal continuing guarantee executed by Chandra on 28 March 2018. On that very day, Chandra submitted a certificate from chartered accountants DJM and Co., certifying his personal net worth to be around Rs 59,000 crore.

The second loan was a Rs 480-crore digital facility extended to Digital Subscriber Management and Consultancy Services Private Limited, with Spirit Infra Power and Multi Ventures Private Limited as a co-borrower. This rental-discounting facility was secured by another continuing guarantee signed by Chandra. To back this, he submitted a second certificate on 6 July 2018, issued by chartered accountants MPJ and Co., which pegged his net worth at Rs 40,562 crore.

The multi-crore vanishing act

When both loans crashed into default, the truth began to unravel during subsequent insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The former Rajya Sabha MP suddenly denied ever possessing the massive net worth stated in the certificates he had submitted to LICHFL. Instead, Chandra pegged his actual net worth in 2024 at a modest Rs 31.79 crore. He further claimed that his net worth back in 2017-18 was actually no more than Rs 40,000 crore.

In its scathing FIR, the CBI has laid out serious charges of conspiracy and deceit. The FIR alleges: "Subhash Chandra had thus, acting in collusion with the borrowers, Vasant Sagar Properties Pvt. Ltd, Pan India Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd, Digital Subscriber Management and Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd, and Spirit Infrapower and Multiventures Pvt. Ltd and their officers and directors, defrauded and cheated LICHFL into advancing the loans to the borrower entities, which have since misappropriated the same".

Furthermore, the agency has accused Chandra of creating false documents to trick the public lender. The CBI alleges: "The accused persons breached the trust reposed by LICHFL in misappropriating and misapplying the funds and stripping the assets of the personal guarantor to defeat recoveries by LICHFL". There was no immediate reaction from Chandra or the other accused named in the FIR on Saturday.

Insolvency battle turns into courtroom drama

While the criminal case unfolds, Chandra is also locked in a high-stakes civil case over his personal insolvency. On Monday, the NCLT formed a special five-member bench to examine his case. By Tuesday, this new bench moved swiftly to stay a previous order by the tie-breaker judge, Nilesh Sharma. Sharma’s order had allowed Chandra to settle his mammoth Rs 22,006 crore in debts for just Rs 6.5 crore.

Chandra's legal team has reacted with fury. On Wednesday, they challenged the NCLT's actions before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Chandra's representative, Senior Advocate Sasmit Patra, termed the NCLT order "faulty and wrong" and bluntly told the appellate bench that "they are not empowered" to form such a five-member panel.

Patra questioned the legal authority of the tribunal's sudden move. He demanded to know, "Under which power" it was stayed and "when did this five-member bench sit together? What proceedings were conducted that led to this five-member bench taking only one order?".

Fierce clash between top lawyers

The courtroom soon witnessed a sharp exchange between the legal heavyweights. Representing dissenting creditors like LICHFL, Canara Bank, and Union Bank, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the case was highly unusual. He submitted that the petition filed against Nilesh Sharma’s order "may be disposed of with liberty to revive" because respondents might challenge the referral itself.

Mehta told the tribunal that the case involved "very peculiar circumstances" as it had thrown up "three views" that were "divergent to each other," making it a perfect fit for a larger bench to review.

However, Chandra's advocate strongly resisted this. Patra argued that Member (Judicial) Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Nilesh Sharma were already in agreement on the repayment and eligibility issues. Patra asserted: "Both are equally on the same page as far as Section 79 is concerned on eligibility. Therefore, to say all these issues have to be re-litigated is completely wrong. The scope of 419 (5) (of the Companies Act, 2013) is very limited".

He argued that Section 419(6) of the Act only allows differing views to be referred to another individual member, not a five-member super-bench. He asked, "It does not give power to the NCLT under the IPC or company law to form a five-member bench. Under which authority, which power, then there is a five member bench,".

No place for media trials

The appellate tribunal, however, refused to get dragged into the dispute over the bench's creation. Officiating Chairperson Justice Yogesh Khanna, leading the NCLAT bench, made it clear that the constitution of the five-member panel was "not a question before challenge for us."

When Mehta suggested that Chandra’s side could challenge the bench’s creation in a separate petition while the current appeals remained pending, saying he had "no difficulty" with that option, the NCLAT bench flatly refused to permit it.

Patra then complained that the media baron was being unfairly targeted in the court of public opinion. He protested that Chandra was being vilified across the country over a proposed payment of Rs 6.5 crore against admitted creditor claims of Rs 22,006 crore, even though no final order approving the repayment plan currently exists.

This drew a sharp rebuke from the Solicitor General. Mehta countered: "This forum cannot be used for saying something outside the court... this forum is being used to say something which will be printed tomorrow in the media. This is not the forum".

The NCLAT bench firmly agreed with the Solicitor General, warning Chandra's counsel: "If you have any grievances, the matter is pending before NCLT; you raise grievance right there."

In the end, Mehta chose not to press for the withdrawal of the appeals, requesting that they remain active instead. The NCLAT agreed, directing that the petitions be listed for their next hearing on 7 October. Meanwhile, the five-member NCLT bench has scheduled its own hearing for 23 September 2026, leaving Chandra to fight on two massive, overlapping legal fronts.