The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), on Friday, rejected IDBI Bank's insolvency plea against Zee Entertainment. The bank had applied for insolvency to recover dues of ₹149.60 crore.
Notably, IDBI Bank appelaed to the NCLT in December last year claiming an amount of ₹149.60 crore. The amount was under dispute between Zee Entertainment and IDBI Bank.
In December 2022, Zee had informed the bourses that IDBI Bank, claiming to be a financial creditor, filed the petition before the Mumbai bench of the NCLT.
IDBI claimed an amount of ₹149.60 crore, which has been disputed by ZEEL.
IDBI, in its application, demanded the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Zee.
At 11:32 am, the shares of ZEE were trading 0.92% higher at ₹186.95 apiece on the BSE.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited started settlement talks with its creditors to repay debts to complete a merger with the Sony Group that would create a $10 billion media giant, reported Bloomberg.
As per the report ZEEL had offere IDBI Bank Ltd, to repay a loan of about 1.49 billion rupees in tranches, people associated with the matter informed BB.
In addition to IDBI, Zee founders are also in talks with Axis Bank Ltd and JC Flowers & Co.'s asset reconstruction unit to settle dues of 400 million rupees each made to entities controlled by them.
It is important for ZEEL to repay outstanding debts to continue the merger process with Sony, that would lead to the creation of India's biggest media firm in terms of viewership.
As per the deal, Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. will own a little more than hald the shares once the deal is completed and Zee's more than half the shares.
At the time of the announcement of merger, Atlanta-based Invesco Developing Markets Fund, owned the largest chunk in Zee with an 18 per cent shareholdings.
However, the company existed its entire holdings in the company.At the time of the announcement of merger, Atlanta-based Invesco Developing Markets Fund, owned the largest chunk in Zee with an 18 per cent shareholdings. However, the company existed its entire holdings in the company.