Sharma’s appointment as RP in Zee Group founder Subhash Chandra’s personal insolvency proceedings has thrust him into the spotlight, making him one of the most closely watched insolvency professionals in the country
Until recently, Shiv Nandan Sharma was largely unknown outside India’s insolvency and restructuring circles. A New Delhi-based Chartered Accountant and Insolvency Professional, Sharma has built his career handling corporate insolvency and liquidation assignments under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). However, his appointment as Resolution Professional (RP) in Zee Group founder Subhash Chandra’s personal insolvency proceedings has thrust him into the spotlight, making him one of the most closely watched insolvency professionals in the country.
Sharma belongs to the first generation of professionals created under India’s new insolvency regime. He was registered with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) in July 2017, shortly after the IBC came into force.
Sharma’s background
Over the years, Sharma developed a practice focused largely on corporate insolvency cases. IBBI records show he has been associated with more than a dozen assignments as Resolution Professional, Liquidator and Interim Resolution Professional. His cases have involved companies such as Saha Infratech, Peregrine India Logix, Nikhil Footwears and OCL Iron and Steel. He has also handled liquidation assignments involving Nibula Print and Pack and LI Digital Payments. While these were significant mandates, they did not attract the level of public attention generated by the Subhash Chandra matter.
That changed in May 2024 when the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) appointed Sharma as Resolution Professional in Chandra’s personal guarantor insolvency proceedings. He replaced Raj Kamal Saraogi, the original RP, after Chandra sought his removal following prolonged litigation and delays in the case. Sharma inherited a highly contentious process involving admitted creditor claims running amounting to tens of thousands of crore and a repayment proposal that offered creditors only a fraction of their dues.
Under scrutiny
His role quickly came under scrutiny. Several creditors argued that Sharma should have conducted a more detailed examination of Chandra’s finances, including investigations into assets, related entities and the gap between the businessman’s historical declarations of wealth and the amount offered under the repayment plan. However, the case also exposed the limitations of the personal guarantor insolvency framework. Unlike corporate insolvency proceedings, where an RP takes control of the debtor’s affairs and enjoys broader investigative powers, the law grants far more limited authority in personal insolvency cases.
The biggest controversy during Sharma’s tenure involved claims submitted on behalf of 1,260 individuals. These claims were said to have lacked supporting documentary evidence but were admitted during the insolvency process. The tribunal later ruled that the claims should have been independently verified and subsequently excluded them. While the finding represented a significant procedural lapse, the tribunal stopped short of holding that Sharma acted dishonestly, maliciously or with any predetermined intent to influence the outcome of the process. For Sharma, the proceedings have become the defining assignment of his career, placing his decisions, responsibilities and limitations under an unprecedented level of judicial and creditor scrutiny.
Dikshat Mehra, Partner, Rajani Associates said one should be cautious about judging an insolvency professional by isolated allegations as Sharma’s record in earlier CIRPs shows the appellate tribunals have upheld the process in which he acted as the RP.
“While the RP is not an adjudicator and cannot be expected to exercise powers the statute does not confer, he is also not a mere conduit for claims and representations placed before him,” he said.
Akshaya Bhansali, Managing Partner, Mindspright Legal, said that while one member of the original bench characterised the process as hurried and opaque, the third member rejected allegations of mala fides and partisanship but nevertheless identified material lapses.
“Chandra’s case concerns personal-guarantor insolvency, not a corporate insolvency resolution process. The RP did not take control of Chandra’s affairs and did not automatically possess the broader management or investigative powers available in a CIRP,” she said.
Published on September 1, 2026
