SC upholds Maharashtra govt order to attach 63 moons' assets under MPID in NSEL case
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the Maharashtra governments order to attach the assets of 63 moons technologies under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act in the Rs 5,600 crore National Spot Exchange Ltd (NSEL) payment default case.
 
The apex court set aside the Bombay High Court judgment that had quashed the notifications of the Maharashtra government against 63 moons.
 
The Supreme Court allowed the Maharashtra government's appeal against the Bombay High Court's direction to free the attachment of assets of 63 moons technologies.
 
Pronouncing the judgement, the bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Bela M. Trivedi said: "For the reasons recorded, we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court. The notifications issued under Section 4 of Maharashtra Protection of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 1999 of attaching the property of the respondent are valid."
 
Appearing for 63 moons technologies, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi urged that the special court be asked to decide the matter within three months.
 
The bench asked Singhvi to move an application for such a prayer.
 
In its judgement in 2019, the Bombay High Court had said, "NSEL is not a financial establishment within the purview of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) in Financial Establishments Act (under which attachment was made). Hence, we decline the prayer (of the state)."
 
The court held that NSEL was not a financial establishment since it did not accept any deposits, as defined under the MPID Act. It noted that NSEL was a commodities exchange where commodities were traded between willing buyers and sellers acting through their brokers.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
Comments
saharaaj
2 months ago
when too many political advocates appear assumption is political color in the case
zeromusingbuffett
2 months ago
What's your opinion on this Sucheta ji? To me it looked like quite a biased judgment ignoring legal and logical merits and focusing excessively on past propaganda.
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback