NSEL Moves Supreme Court Against HC Order Refusing Joint Trial In CBI Cases Over Alleged Payment Crisis

National Spot Exchange Ltd (NSEL) has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court's March 27, 2026 judgment refusing to direct a joint trial in two CBI cases arising out of the alleged NSEL payment crisis.

NSEL argues that the cases stem from the same alleged fraudulent paired contracts. It says they involve the common accused, witnesses, and documents.

The special leave petition, filed on June 19, 2026, is yet to be listed.

The dispute concerns two CBI Special Cases pending before a Mumbai Special Court. According to NSEL, both cases arise from transactions conducted on the NSEL platform between 2007 and 2013. The transactions allegedly involved fraudulent T+2 and T+25 paired contracts without actual delivery of commodities.

One case relates to an alleged loss of about ₹120.75 crore to PEC Ltd. The other concerns an alleged loss of about ₹222.49 crore to MMTC Ltd. NSEL argued that the matters involve 18 common accused, 25 common witnesses, and 71 common documents. It contended that the cases should therefore be tried together.

The CBI opposed the plea. It is submitted that the cases involve different public sector undertakings, separate conspiracies, distinct transactions and different sets of accused persons. It argued that separate trials were warranted and that a joint trial would lead to confusion, delay and prejudice.

Rejecting NSEL's revision plea, the Bombay High Court held that the two prosecutions did not arise from the same transaction. It held that the cases did not satisfy the requirements for a joint trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The 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 2007 to 2013 fell outside the scope of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It said the cases involved separate conspiracies concerning different entities and did not form part of the same transaction.

Dismissing the revision application, the 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."