NCLAT Rejects Dissenting Creditors' Challenge To NSEL Scheme Clauses On Broker Liability, Claims Assignment

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on Tuesday dismissed an appeal by Nirtex Exports & Investment Pvt. Ltd. and other specified creditors challenging the NCLT's approval of a settlement scheme in the 2013 National Spot Exchange Ltd. payment default matter, particularly provisions barring parallel claims against brokers.

It held that creditors covered by the scheme cannot continue pursuing the same claims separately against brokers once those claims stand assigned under the arrangement.

“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," the court observed.

A bench of Judicial Member Justice Yogesh Khanna and Technical Member Ajai Das Mehrotra said Nirtex and the other objecting creditors were set to receive approximately 42% of their claims under the scheme.

It held that they could not simultaneously continue claims against brokers arising from the same NSEL payment default, since such claims would thereafter be pursued by 63 Moons Technologies Ltd., NSEL's parent company, as assignee.

The appeal challenged a November 28, 2025 order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, which approved NSEL's scheme of arrangement with creditors.

The scheme proposed a capped settlement of ₹1,950 crore, substantially funded by 63 Moons, NSEL's parent.

The 2013 NSEL payment default triggered multiple recovery proceedings by traders who suffered losses on the exchange platform.

These included civil suits and proceedings under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against defaulters, brokers, their associates, and entities in the 63 Moons group.

Nirtex and the other objecting creditors had challenged clauses in the scheme that provided for release of consenting brokers from liability and automatic assignment of specified creditors' claims to 63 Moons, NSEL's parent company, after the settlement trigger event.

They argued that the scheme unlawfully compelled them to withdraw pending civil proceedings against brokers. They also said it forced them to accept an amount substantially lower than the value of already attached assets.

They further argued that the scheme diluted protections available under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act by treating protected depositors as ordinary creditors.

The appellate tribunal, however, said these objections could not be reopened because the scheme had already survived earlier legal challenges.

It noted that the NCLAT had upheld the same scheme in January this year. That ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court in March.

A separate appeal by MMTC Ltd. was also dismissed in March. The tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's April 13 order directing expeditious implementation of the scheme.

This included a deposit of ₹1,950 crore in an escrow account maintained by Universal Trustee with Axis Bank.

The bench said reopening the same objections would effectively amount to reviewing earlier orders that had already attained finality.

“Admittedly the order passed by us in CA(AT) No. 3/2026 has since been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus we are not inclined to re-visit the scheme yet again as has been found to be legally valid in our earlier judgements.”

The tribunal further said the scheme had been approved by an overwhelming majority of specified creditors.

It was, therefore, binding on all, including dissenting specified creditors such as Nirtex and others.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.