National Spot Exchange Ltd (NSEL) has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court's 27 March 2026 judgement that refused to order a joint trial in two central bureau of investigation (CBI) cases arising from the alleged NSEL payment crisis,
according to a report by LiveLawBiz.
As reported by LiveLawBiz, NSEL has filed a special leave petition (SLP) before the apex court, contending that both criminal cases originate from the same alleged fraudulent paired contracts executed on the exchange platform and involve substantially overlapping evidence. The petition, filed on 19 June 2026, is yet to be listed for hearing.
The appeal challenges the Bombay High Court's decision upholding separate trials in two CBI Special Cases pending before a Mumbai Special Court.
NSEL Cites Common Accused, Witnesses and Documents
According to the LiveLawBiz report, the dispute relates to transactions conducted on the NSEL platform between 2007 and 2013. CBI alleges that the transactions involved fraudulent T+2 and T+25 paired contracts without actual delivery of commodities.
One prosecution concerns an alleged loss of about ₹120.75 crore suffered by PEC Ltd, while the second relates to an alleged loss of about ₹222.49 crore to MMTC Ltd.
NSEL argued before the courts that the two prosecutions are intrinsically connected, arising from the same alleged modus operandi. The exchange submitted that the matters involve 18 common accused, 25 common witnesses and 71 common documents, making a joint trial appropriate in the interest of judicial economy and consistency.
The Exchange maintained that conducting separate trials would result in duplication of evidence and unnecessary repetition of proceedings.
CBI Opposed Clubbing of the Cases
CBI opposed NSEL's plea, arguing that the two prosecutions concern different public sector undertakings, separate conspiracies, distinct financial transactions and different sets of accused persons.
According to the agency, separate trials are legally warranted and combining the cases would create confusion, delay proceedings and prejudice the parties involved.
Bombay High Court Rejected Joint Trial Plea
Rejecting NSEL's revision application in March this year, the Bombay High Court held that the two prosecutions did not arise from the ‘same transaction’ and, therefore, failed to meet the legal requirements for a joint trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The High Court observed: "Merely because some witnesses and some accused are common, it cannot be considered as a ground to try the trial jointly."
The Court further held that the alleged offences, spanning the period between 2007 and 2013, fell outside the scope of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It concluded that the cases involved separate conspiracies involving different entities and could not be treated as part of a single transaction.
Dismissing the revision plea, the High Court ruled: "The cases do not satisfy legal requirement for a joint trial. On contrary, a joint trial would lead to confusion in evidence, unnecessary delay in proceedings and possible prejudice to the parties."
One of Several Significant Rulings in the NSEL Litigation
The latest appeal comes amid a series of important judicial developments in the long-running NSEL litigation.
In March 2026, the Bombay High Court, while deciding multiple connected appeals in the NSEL-63 moons matter, ruled that a civil settlement or a scheme of arrangement approved by the national company law tribunal (NCLT) cannot absolve accused persons from criminal liability.
A division bench of justice AS Gadkari and justice Kamal Khata held that while the NCLT-approved settlement aims to compensate investors, it cannot be used as a shield against criminal prosecution.
The bench observed that the lifting of attachments over assets and the consequent distribution of funds to investors would not dilute the criminal charges against the accused and that criminal proceedings must continue independently until their logical conclusion.
Background of the NSEL Payment Crisis
The NSEL payment crisis surfaced in 2013 after alleged payment defaults involving paired commodity contracts. Investigating agencies have alleged that the contracts were structured without actual delivery of commodities, resulting in a payment default of about ₹5,600 crore affecting around 13,000 investors and traders.
NSEL, incorporated in 2005, is a subsidiary of 63 moons technologies ltd (formerly Financial Technologies India Ltd), which holds 99.99% of its share capital, while the National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd (NAFED) holds the remaining 0.01%.
The litigation has since resulted in multiple proceedings before the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court concerning criminal prosecution, the attachment of assets and the recovery of investors' dues.
In April 2022, the Supreme Court held that NSEL qualifies as a financial establishment under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act). The apex court upheld the attachment of NSEL's properties under the MPID Act after setting aside an earlier Bombay High Court order that had directed the release of certain attached assets.
Subsequently, in May 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that secured creditors cannot claim priority over properties attached under the MPID Act in connection with the NSEL case, reinforcing the statutory framework intended to protect the interests of thousands of affected depositors.
With the present SLP, the Supreme Court is now expected to examine whether the two CBI prosecutions involving alleged losses to PEC Ltd and MMTC Ltd should proceed independently or be tried together as sought by NSEL.
You may also want to read…
