New Delhi | Two days after launching an unusually sharp attack on billionaire Mukesh Ambani and accusing Reliance-linked media outlets of running a campaign against him, Zee founder Subhash Chandra has, in his now near-daily public statements, dropped further mention of those allegations and shifted his focus to settling outstanding dues and defending his personal insolvency plan.

Chandra, during an 18-minute interaction with followers on Instagram, attended by about 560 people at its peak, made little fresh reference to his allegations against Ambani, instead telling viewers that borrowers linked to his Essel Group had agreed to settle their outstanding obligations with lenders.

The Instagram interaction on Monday came after three statements he issued to counter criticism over a National Company Law Tribunal-approved repayment plan under which creditors are set to recover about Rs 6.25 crore from his personal estate against claims of roughly Rs 22,006 crore.

Chandra's remarks on Friday had taken a markedly different tone. He directly named Ambani, chairman of Reliance Industries, and accused Reliance-linked media businesses including TV18 and CNBC-TV18 of spreading what he called misinformation about his insolvency proceedings. Reliance rejected the allegations as baseless and said its media brands had never been used to attack anyone.

Chandra's company did not respond to an email seeking comment on the apparent change in his stance and asking whether he had withdrawn or dropped his allegations against Ambani.

Chandra said the Rs 22,006 crore figure had been widely misunderstood because it represented claims arising from personal guarantees he had provided for loans taken by companies associated with the Essel Group, rather than money he had personally borrowed.

He said he met the borrowers on Sunday and they had agreed to repay their outstanding obligations. The borrowers number about 85 and are loosely associated with the Essel Group, he said.

According to Chandra, the borrowers told him their outstanding bank debt was about Rs 990 crore. He said he was merely a guarantor and that only one or two of the borrower entities were linked to his family.

The distinction is significant because the NCLT proceedings concern Chandra's liability as a personal guarantor, rather than the underlying debt of the corporate borrowers. The approved repayment plan does not extinguish the borrowers' obligations to lenders or prevent creditors from pursuing available corporate assets and securities.

Chandra said his net worth had been about Rs 39 crore when he entered the Rajya Sabha and had subsequently fallen by about Rs 8 crore. After excluding a residential property valued at Rs 25 crore, he said the Resolution Professional had assessed his available assets at about Rs 6.79 crore, of which he was prepared to contribute Rs 6.5 crore.

Creditors have challenged the low recovery from Chandra, citing earlier net-worth disclosures that were substantially higher and seeking greater scrutiny of his assets. Several lenders, including HDFC Bank and LIC Housing Finance, are preparing to challenge the NCLT order before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

On Instagram Live, Chandra said that he was merely a guarantor and not the actual borrower and said discussions have already been held with the actual borrowers, and all remaining dues will be paid back.

Replying to a query, Chandra said he acted as a guarantor for 18 to 20 borrowing entities. All these borrowers were directly or indirectly linked to the Essel Group. Chandra stated that he only endorsed guarantees for people he personally knew. There was no one on that list whom he was unfamiliar with; the list included either family members or close associates.

However, Chandra also admitted that these guarantees were perhaps his "biggest mistake", acknowledging that it is precisely what led to his current situation.

Chandra further said his total assets currently stand at around Rs 31 crore, reflecting a decline of nearly Rs 8 crore over the last decade.

In this matter, the dissenting lenders have alleged before the NCLT that five entities linked to Chandra's family together controlled 61.78 per cent of the voting share and were instrumental in pushing through his personal insolvency resolution plan, which proposes to pay just Rs 6.5 crore against admitted creditor claims of about Rs 22,006.57 crore.

The lenders contended that the five entities were associates or related parties of Chandra and should have been barred from voting on the repayment plan. Their votes helped secure an overall 80.814 per cent approval for the plan in the committee of creditors (CoC), according to a 144-page order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

The objections were rejected by Nilesh Sharma, the third member of the NCLT bench, who ruled in favour of the repayment plan after a split verdict between Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri.

The matter will now go back to the original division bench for a formal order in line with the majority opinion, as required under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.