TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 773
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oshi, Mr Vrushabh Vig, Mr Prarabdh Tiwari, Mr Sahil Nindawat, Advocates. Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr Advocate. JUDGEMENT JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 28.11.2025 of the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai in CA No.7/2025 in CP No.104(MB)of 2025 vide which the Ld. NCLT had allowed the Company Petition No.104/2025 and discarded the objections raised by the appellant in their CA. 2. The CA No.7/2025 was filed by the appellant before the Ld. NCLT, inter alia, objecting to certain clauses as contained in the scheme, proposed by the Respondent, which clauses per force require the appellant to withdraw civil suits/proceedings instituted by the appellants against third parties, hence it was argu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ease/restitution of monies/ fixed deposits frozen/attached by EOW/Competent Authority. 21. Assignment of all Specified Creditors Claims "21.1. On and with effect from the settlement trigger event, all specified creditors claims shall automatically, unconditionally and unequivocally stand assign to invested in 63 moons without doing any further act, deed or thing. " 5. It is pertinent to mention the Ld. NCLT in CP(CAA)/104/MB/2025 had approved the scheme of arrangement with creditors by proposing a capped settlement of Rs.1950 crores. The scheme is challenged on the ground it is prejudicial to the public interest and is opposed to public policy. 6. It is however pertinent to point out this Tribunal vide its judgement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vests dissenting creditors the right to object to withdrawal/abatement of legal proceedings is illegal being violative of the CPC and BNSS and is unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is therefore liable to be rejected? XI) Whether, in view of the fact that there are legal proceedings initiated prior to the institution of the Compromise Scheme, Section 230(6) accords jurisdiction to the Hon'ble NCLT/NCLAT to divest dissenting creditors of their legal and constitutional right to continue to seek judicial redress in such subsisting proceedings in which they are plaintiffs/beneficiaries, the consequence of which is extinguishment of such proceedings? 13. These aspects have been considered by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., that the appellant(s) herein are keen and interested to give a quietus to all controversies and therefore they intend in right earnest to give effect to the terms of the Scheme. In the circumstances, the impugned order(s) is/are kept in abeyance. Secondly, the designated Courts as well as other Courts and Authorities shall pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible for the implementation of the Scheme as it is intended to make payment to the entitled investors. Once there is de-freezing of the account by the aforesaid designated Court, within a period of two weeks thereafter the amount of Rs.1950 crores shall be deposited/transmitted in an Escrow Account/Account to be maintained by the Escrow Agent (Universal T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey trail has been traced directly to the Defaulters and their Associates. Suits filed by the appellants against the Brokers are also for recoveries of losses suffered while trading on NSEL's exchange. The present Scheme seeks to bring a quietus to the matter. It contemplates paying a Settlement Amount to the remaining unpaid traders (Specified Creditor) for claims arising from the payment default or trades on NSEL. In return, they will release and discharge the Persons in the 63 Moons Group, Consenting Brokers because the Settlement Amount is substantially generated from NSEL's parent company, 63 Moons Technologies Ltd, the Specified Creditors' Claims are assigned to 63 Moons. Consequently, future recoveries- whether from non-consenting Bro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount was adjusted towards the claims against the brokers. Further, the Appellants have stated they have taken steps to mitigate the loss by way of Representative Suit being No. 173 of 2014 pending before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The relevant paragraph from the Commercial Suit No. 48 of 2017 is reproduced herein under: "84. The Plaintiffs have received an amount of Rs. 42,43,970.02/- from the Defendant No. 4 through NSEL upto January 2014 on a pro-rata basis towards the outstanding due to the several investors. In these circumstances, now an aggregate sum of Rs. 9,57,27,765.40/- (including interest upto the date of filing of the Suit) is required to be repaid to all Plaintiffs. NSEL has failed to disburse payments in acc....