AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ettle the claim of specified creditors arising from August, 2013 payment default on the National Spot Exchange Ltd by proposing a capped settlement of Rs. 31,950 crores. The scheme is challenged on the ground it is prejudicial to the public interest and opposed to the public policy. 2. Before the Ld. ASG would argue the matter on merits it was pointed out to him this Tribunal vide its Judgement dated 15.01.2026 had already sustained the order of Ld. NCLT which had approved the scheme and have rejected the objections raised by L.J. Tanna Enterprises Pvt Ltd and others in Company Appeal (AT) No.03/2026. Rather to the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by this Tribunal has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1485/2026 decided on 09.03.2026. 3. Confronted with the above, the Ld. ASG had referred to A.V Papayya Sastry and others Vs Govt of AP and others (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 221 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 38. The matter can be looked at from a different angle as well. Suppose, a case is decided by a competent Court of Law after hearing the parties and an order is passed in favour of the applicant/plaintiff which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paras 25.1, 25.2 as well as para 44 which are as under:- 25.1. Ld. Counsel for Enforcement Directorate ("ED") appeared before the Tribunal and stated that the ED objected to the Scheme, alleging that it aims to cleanse liabilities and attached assets under the PMLA and MPID Acts, disturb criminal cases, and undermine the Supreme Court-appointed Committee. In response, the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner Company clarified that the Scheme is a lawful, commercial settlement approved by a large creditor majority, which neither affects criminal proceedings nor violates any court orders. It stated that use of attached assets will occur only with approval from competent courts and that the Scheme complements, rather than contradicts, the Supreme Court's directions. 25.2. Ld. Counsel for Chief Investigating Officer, SIT NSEL, EOW, Mumbai ("EOW") appeared before the Tribunal and stated that the Deputy Collector/Competent Authority under the MPID Act and the Chief Investigating Officer, EOW, Mumbai, have objected that the Scheme contravenes prior judicial directions, including the MPID Court's order dated 13th October 2022 and the Supreme Court's order dated 04th May 2022 const....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Supreme Court held that the High Courts in exercise of their power under Section 482 of Cr.PC can compound or quash the non-compoundable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, such stipulation in the scheme cannot said to be against public policy or illegal. 5. Thus it was argued the order notes wrong facts viz the EOW as well as the competent authority of MPID did not object to the scheme and these facts are wrongly recorded in paras 25.1 and 25.2 above of the impugned order, hence the impugned order is vitiated by fraud. 6. Heard. 7. Before proceeding further we need to point out the scheme was approved by the more than 90% of the creditors and between May, 2025 till November, 2025, the appellant did not assail the resolutions passed or the scheme except the appellants voted against the scheme in May, 2025. Admittedly no objections were filed by the appellants before Ld. NCLT when the company petition was pending. 8. Further qua fraud we need to say the Ld. ASG had only pointed out to the above paras of the impugned order to show the fraud is committed upon the Ld. NCLT but to our considered view,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10. Having perused the Scheme of Arrangement and the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the NCLT approving the same, we find that allowing this application would be in the interest of justice and in furtherance of settlement of the outstanding claims of the creditors/investors. 10. Moreso, a bare perusal of our order dated 15.01.2026 in company Appeal (AT) No.3/2026 we have noted:- "12. Further an objection viz the scheme violates the provisions of MPID Act is also to our mind a frivolous argument since the competent authority under MPID Act as well as EOW has supported the scheme as is evident from the following paras of the impugned order" 11. Further if one may peruse the appeal filed by the appellant, more specifically its para 7.4.7, it is recorded the appeal is aligned in principle with the L.J. Tanna's Appeal challenge but is anchored, in its distinct status as (i) a Central Government PSU, dealing with public funds. Now this cannot be the ground to challenge the scheme on fraud. Even otherwise vide order dated 09.03.2026, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1485/2026 had held as under:- "Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the respecti....