Part 3: Chandra Accuses Ambani's Network of "Misinformation." Reliance Calls It Baseless.

Part 1 and Part 2 of this series covered the NCLT-approved repayment plan itself and the banks appealing it. Separately from that legal process, Subhash Chandra has taken his case to the public, and named Mukesh Ambani directly.

What Chandra alleges

Chandra has accused Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani's media network, which includes Network18, of running what he called a false narrative and "witch hunting" around his personal insolvency case. He said he tried to reach Ambani directly, first by phone and then by letter, before going public.

"When I came to know about this, I called Mukesh Ambani but I do not know whether my call reached him or not," Chandra said, according to a statement carried on Zee Business, the network Chandra himself founded before it changed ownership. "I wrote a letter to him this morning. It may have reached him. Perhaps it may not have."

Chandra also alleged that a mutual acquaintance had raised concerns with an editor at the network over its coverage, and that the editor indicated the coverage was being carried under instructions "from above" that were "bound to be followed." That claim comes from Chandra's own account and has not been independently confirmed.

On Dhirubhai Ambani, Mukesh Ambani's father and the founder of Reliance, Chandra said: "Dhirubhai Ambani was a very sensible person and a very good businessman. I learned a great deal from him."

What Reliance says

A Reliance Group spokesperson said the company "strongly deny the allegations and insinuations against the media entities that are a part of the Reliance Group," and separately described the allegations as baseless.

The 2019 dispute Chandra has revived

Chandra's public statement also revived a separate, older dispute. In July 2019, Essel Group sold an 11% stake in Zee Entertainment Enterprises to Invesco Oppenheimer for ₹4,224 crore. Chandra has alleged that Reliance later attempted to acquire Zee in partnership with Invesco, on terms he said would have benefited his family but not minority shareholders, and that this is why the offer was turned down. Invesco has said it facilitated talks between Zee and Reliance, without confirming Chandra's characterization of the terms.

The independent-audit request

Separately from the Ambani dispute, Chandra has publicly asked the Finance Ministry and the banking system to appoint an independent auditor to examine Essel Group's debt, defaults, and repayment record. He has said the group's total borrowings were about ₹45,000 crore when financial stress emerged in January 2019, of which about ₹43,000 crore has since been repaid, with roughly ₹2,000 crore still outstanding due to what he described as asset-liability mismatches, including delayed state government payments on infrastructure projects.

What Chandra has said about his own next steps

Chandra has said he and his family sold personal assets, including their family home, to meet the group's repayment commitments. He has said he currently lives on rental income from a smaller residential property he retained.

On his own future, Chandra has said he plans to work with friends in Switzerland, describing this as his next chapter, and has said he expects to share more specific details within one to two weeks of his statement. He has also said he may take a loan of ₹2-4 crore from his family to invest in startups.

I'm reporting these as Chandra's own stated plans, not confirmed employment or investment arrangements, since no such arrangement had been finalised or independently confirmed as of this writing.

Reflecting on going public against a business figure of Ambani's scale, Chandra said: "Some people will say that I should not have done this. Some may perhaps appreciate it, some may criticise it too. Perhaps, for the first time, I am going to speak against a very large corporate person and house in this country."

This is Part 3 of a three-part series on the Subhash Chandra insolvency case. Part 1 covers how the ₹22,006 crore claim became a ₹6.5 crore payout. Part 2 covers the six lenders appealing the plan and the tribunal's stated reasoning for approving it.