Scam-tainted NSEL's ₹1,950 crore one-time settlement gets investor nod

An overwhelming majority of the affected traders have voted in favour of a proposed ₹ 1,950 crore one-time settlement with the National Spot Exchange Ltd (NSEL), paving the way for potentially ending the 13-year-old payments crisis.
The settlement—filed by NSEL with the backing of its parent 63 Moons Technologies before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)—received support from 92.81% (5,682 traders) of the traders by number and 91.35% by value, according to a statement by the exchange. The e-voting process concluded on 17 May.
NSEL's collapse in 2013 had left over 13,000 investors with claims amounting to ₹ 5,600 crore. While some payouts have been made over the years, larger investors await final settlement. The latest proposal, introduced in November 2024, seeks to distribute ₹ 1,950 crore—roughly 42% of the ₹ 4,650 crore still owed—subject to final approval.
'This is the major step in the distribution of money to the specified creditors,' said Sharad Kumar Saraf, chairman of the NSEL Investors Forum (NIF). The voting results reflect an overwhelming interest among investors to recover at least part of their investments, he said.
Originally proposed by the NIF, the scheme seeks to compensate traders in proportion to their outstanding dues as of 31 July 2024. Once implemented, it will also lead to the withdrawal of ongoing litigation and the assignment of all creditor rights to 63 Moons.
The NCLT in its 8 April order had directed the e-voting process and appointed Ashwini Gupta as the scrutinizer and retired IRS officer Mukesh Mital as chairperson.
S. Rajendran, managing director and chief executive of 63 Moons, expressed optimism that the 'first-of-its-kind settlement' would receive necessary regulatory support.
According to legal experts, the settlement's fate now rests with the NCLT.
'With over 91% of affected traders backing the ₹ 1,950 crore one-time settlement, the OTS proposal has cleared the most critical hurdle—creditor approval,' said Alok Kumar, founder and senior partner at THS–The Law Firm. However, for the scheme to attain finality, it must now pass judicial scrutiny. 'The tribunal's sanction is essential under Sections 230–232 of the Companies Act, as this isn't merely a private contract but a court-monitored compromise scheme.'
Abhinav Agnihotri, partner at Burgeon Law, said while the majority backing strengthens the case, dissenting creditors—roughly 9%—can still object during NCLT hearings. 'The NCLT is not a rubber stamp. It can reject the scheme if it's found to be unfair, discriminatory, legally defective, or against public policy.'
Even after NCLT clearance, challenges could arise. 'The scheme may be delayed in case NCLAT is inclined to pass any interim order staying the operation of the NCLT order,' Agnihotri said.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Mint

2 hours ago

• Mint

Navigating complexities: Why the voting threshold is a major hurdle in insolvency application withdrawal

India's leading law firms such as Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co, Khaitan & Co, and JSA Advocates & Solicitors have voiced concerns about the increasing difficulty in withdrawing companies from insolvency proceedings. A key hurdle is the stiff requirement for a 90% voting threshold from the committee of creditors (CoC) to approve such a withdrawal, even when a viable insolvency resolution plan is near, they said. "One of the key challenges is the requirement of a 90% voting threshold from the committee of creditors (CoC), which is often difficult to achieve," said Shardul Shroff, executive chairman at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. Shroff was pointing to section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code that allows withdrawal of insolvency application against a corporate debtor only with the approval of 90% voting share of the committee of creditors, which is often hard to achieve. Shroff also noted another hurdle wherein once the insolvency proceedings are admitted, they are treated as proceedings in rem, meaning that they impact all stakeholders of the corporate debtor and not just the parties to the settlement. "As a result, even if the CoC consents to withdrawal, dissenting stakeholders such as operational creditors or minority financial creditors may object if their claims remain unpaid or unresolved." Law firms have mentioned some insolvency cases, including Byju's, and Syska LED, wherein creditors have failed to settle matters outside of the formal insolvency process. Also Read | Reform push: Insurance amendment bill heads to Parliament; changes to IBC, Companies Act will have to wait Shroff highlighted the Byju's case wherein operational creditor BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India) moved the insolvency court in 2024 seeking dues worth ₹158 crore. Byju's settled its dues with BCCI. The same year, however, other creditors including Glas Trust and Aditya Birla finance opposed the settlement since financial creditors did not receive their dues before BCCI, an operational creditor. On 23 October 2024 , the Supreme Court clarified the procedure for withdrawal under Section 12A and emphasized that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench cannot act merely as a 'post office" . "However, the Court did not lay down any clear test or criteria that the NCLT is supposed to apply if the statutory requirements for withdrawal are otherwise met. This lack of guidance can lead to legal uncertainty and add to the procedural delays, leading to erosion of value available for stakeholders," said Shroff. Today, Byju's still continues to be under the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). This was after SC in May 2025 admitted appeal filed by BCCI and refused to stay the ongoing CIRP, but issued notices to key creditors Glas Trust, Aditya Birla Finance, etc. The next hearing is scheduled for 21 July, when the top court will decide whether to allow withdrawal and consider interim reliefs. Others concur. "While the 90% threshold aims to ensure consensus, it is increasingly being relied upon by courts to disallow settlements on a bilateral basis if the majority group is opposing," Kumar Saurabh Singh, a partner at Khaitan & Co who practises banking and finance restructuring and insolvency, said. Also Read: IBC's weak spot: Slow, difficult recovery from dubious pre-bankruptcy deals Bottleneck Singh noted that when such bilateral settlements were challenged by other creditors or fresh applications were filed, they caused a 'judicial bottleneck". According to an insolvency lawyer who practises in NCLT-Mumbai, the court rejected Syska LED Lights' application to withdraw the corporate insolvency resolution process initiated against them. The bankruptcy case started in October last year, when Sunstar Industries, one of the operational creditors, initiated insolvency proceedings against the consumer electricals company Syska LED Lights. On 18 March 2025, Sunstar Industries filed a section 12A application for withdrawal of CIRP after reaching a settlement with Syska LED Lights. However, financial creditors, including IDFC First Bank and State Bank of India, intervened while strongly opposing the insolvency application withdrawal. The insolvency court rejected the withdrawal application this year in March. "Given the criticality of the 12A process being the only avenue for withdrawal of a company from CIRP, commercial considerations should be paramount in the court's decision-making. Delays or any other form of judicial intervention may prove fatal," said Soumitra Majumdar, partner, JSA Advocates & Solicitors. Majumdar is in favour of a high threshold of CoC approval. "Given the definitive nature of the 12A process, the consent threshold should be high, reflective of wide acceptance by the committee of creditors. Accordingly, a 90% threshold appears to be in order". Still, commercial considerations should be allowed to be paramount while considering 12A processes, with absolute flexibilities and procedural safeguards.

Time of India

a day ago

• Time of India

Iran-Israel war escalation: Experts warn of cascading impact on India's trade with West Asia; crude prices, exports at risk

The escalating war between Iran and Israel could have wide-ranging repercussions for India's trade with the broader West Asian region, experts warned, citing early signs of export disruptions and heightened shipping and insurance risks. The conflict has already started impacting India's trade with Iran and Israel, and any further escalation could endanger exports to countries such as Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, they said. 'We are in for big trouble now because of this war. It will have a cascading effect on India's trade with West Asian countries,' said Sharad Kumar Saraf, founder chairman of Mumbai-based Technocraft Industries, which exports drum closures and packaging components, PTI quoted. Saraf said his firm is already holding back shipments to both Israel and Iran due to the deteriorating situation. Strategic choke points under stress The recent US airstrikes on Iran — aimed at neutralising its nuclear programme — have worsened the security outlook, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow but critical oil shipping lane through which 60–65 per cent of India's crude imports pass. The Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) noted that any escalation in the region, especially one that disrupts the Hormuz Strait, would severely affect India's energy security, increase shipping costs and drive up inflation. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo 'Any disruption to shipping lanes, port access or financial systems in this corridor would severely impact India's trade flows,' said Ajay Srivastava, GTRI founder. India's exposure to Iran, Israel, and West Asia India exported goods worth $1.24 billion to Iran in FY25, primarily Basmati rice ($753.2 million), banana, soya meal, Bengal gram, and tea. Imports from Iran were $441.8 million. Trade with Israel was larger, with $2.1 billion in exports and $1.6 billion in imports during 2024–25. GTRI warned that perishable shipments like rice, bananas, and tea are especially vulnerable due to delays and higher insurance costs. 'A prolonged conflict could dampen Iranian demand and squeeze Indian exporters,' Srivastava said. Trade with the broader West Asia region — including Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen — stood at $8.6 billion in exports and $33.1 billion in imports, making it a significant trading corridor. Rising global shipping and security risks The fresh conflict builds on already strained global shipping routes. Attacks by Yemen-based Houthi rebels since the October 2023 Israel-Hamas war have hampered commercial movement through the Red Sea. Around 80 per cent of India's European trade passes through this route, as does a large portion of shipments to the US. The Red Sea also handles 30 per cent of global container traffic and 12 per cent of total world trade, making these disruptions especially significant. India's overall exports had grown 6 per cent to $825 billion in FY25, and the government is targeting $900 billion this fiscal. However, May data showed a 2.17 per cent decline in exports, driven by a drop in petroleum product shipments. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has also revised its outlook, saying global trade will contract 0.2 per cent in 2025, against the earlier projection of 2.7 per cent growth, due to the tariff war and geopolitical instability. Experts now warn that the widening Iran-Israel war, combined with the uncertain impact of US involvement and potential disruptions in the Hormuz Strait, may further derail India's trade recovery and energy security. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now

Business Standard

a day ago

• Business Standard

JSW Energy joins race for Raigarh Champa Rail Infra after NCLAT nod

Appellate tribunal NCLAT has quashed an NCLT order that denied permission to the lenders of debt-ridden Raigarh Champa Rail Infrastructure to start a fresh bidding process. The development has come as a relief to JSW Energy which had sought permission to participate in the insolvency resolution process of Raigarh Champa Rail Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (RCRIPL), an ancillary company of KSK Mahanadi. JSW Energy has already acquired KSK Mahanadi Power, a 3,600 MW thermal power plant in Chhattisgarh, for Rs 16,084 crore through the insolvency process, earlier in March this year. The Chennai-bench of the NCLAT said it sees no demerits in the decision of the lenders' body CoC to invite fresh Expression of Interest (EoI) by re-issuing fresh Form G, inviting new prospective buyers as it "will certainly increase competition and in all likelihood, result in higher bids." ".... since, the EoI is proposed to be reopened for everybody and not for JSW alone, it is fair and transparent and not discriminatory and that since, existing PRAs (Prospective Resolution Applicants) are proposed to be retained with option given to them to participate in challenge mechanism, it is also fair to the existing Resolution Applicants," it said. Moreover, the tribunal over the bid submitted by Medha group, which was the highest and also approved earlier by RCRIPL lenders with 100 per cent votes earlier, said it is "proposed to be the Reserve Price, there cannot be any value erosion of the Corporate Debtor, if EoI process is reopened." Five companies, including Adani Power, Jindal Power, Medha Servo Drives, Sherisha Technologies and Vedanta, were in the race to acquire the special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) promoted by KSK group. Earlier, on April 3, 2025, the Hyderabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) denied permission to the RP and the lenders' body Committee of Creditors (CoC) for issuance of a fresh Form G and invitation of EoI from new eligible Prospective Resolution Applicants, including JSW Energy. Instead, in fresh bidding, NCLT directed to conduct the challenge mechanism amongst the bidders as earlier decided by the CoC. However, NCLAT said it sees no demerits in the proposal of the RP and decision of the CoC, as going by previous decisions, the lenders' body has the power to call for fresh Form G and permit other PRAs to participate even after submission of EoI. "The Impugned Order of April 3, 2025, is hereby quashed and as a consequence. The relief as sought for, by the Resolution Professional, to be permitted to issue fresh Form G and to invite Expression of Interest (EoI) from new and interested eligible Prospective Resolution Applicants is granted," said the NCLAT order passed on June 19, 2025 by a two member comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Jatindranath Swain. Form G under IBC is an Invitation for Expression of Interest (EoI) and is published by the Resolution Professional (RP) to invite potential resolution applicants to submit their proposals for taking over a company undergoing CIRP. JSW Energy has already acquired KSK Mahanadi Power, a 3,600 MW thermal power plant in Chhattisgarh, for Rs 16,084 crore through the insolvency process, earlier in March this year. RCRIPL is an SPV promoted by the KSK group to construct, lay a railway line and associated infrastructure from coal fields in Mand Raigarh to the power stations in Janjgir Champa. It passes through the Indian Railways Network for transporting coal, associated fuels and such other raw materials, as well as fly ash and other. CIRP was started against RCRIPL on January 1, 2021, and the first final Form G was issued on 24.08.2021. However, the EoI submission process remained pending till May 2024, because NCLT directed the RP of KMPCL (KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd) not to receive any resolution pending adjudication of various proceedings seeking consolidation of the CIRP of KMPCL and KWIPL (KSK Water Infrastructures). Later on July 4, 2024, CoC approved the resolution plan submitted by Medha with 100 per cent voting share and moved a plea before NCLT. However, before the Hyderabad bench of NCLT could approve Medha's bid, the RP of RCRIPL filed another plea seeking permission for undertaking a challenge mechanism among the resolution applicants/bidders in accordance with the CIRP Regulations. This application for withdrawal of Plan Approval by lenders was approved by a majority voting share of 78.59 per cent of CoC, and NCLT allowed it. However, instead of proceeding with the challenge mechanism, the RP then filed another plea, wherein permission for reopening of the bidding process for RCRI was sought, for the purpose of inviting an EoI from JSW Energy, enabling them to participate in the CIRP. This new request of the RP to allow to opening bidding process and add JSW Energy was denied by NCLT, saying it was contrary to the principles of fairness and the timelines of the CIRP process. Later, JSW Energy also approached NCLT by filing applications seeking permission to participate in the CIRP of Raigarh Champa Rail Infrastructure by requesting issuance of a fresh Form G, which was again dismissed. Finally, a third application was moved by RP to facilitate the entry of JSW as a Resolution Applicant in the CIRP of RCRI. It sought permission of the tribunal for issuance of a fresh Form G and invitation of EoI from new, interested, and eligible Prospective Resolution Applicants for submission of Resolution Plans. This was again rejected by a two-member bench of NCLT comprising Members Sanjay Puri and Rajeev Bhardwaj on April 3, 2025. This was challenged before the appellate tribunal NCLAT, which on June 16 quashed the NCLT order.