Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With ₹1,950 Crore NSEL Settlement For Traders Hit By 2013 Default
Kirit Singhania
9 March 2026 12:35 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the approval of a Rs 1,950-crore settlement scheme for traders affected by the 2013 default at National Spot Exchange Ltd (NSEL), dismissing an appeal challenging orders of the NCLT and the NCLAT that had cleared the plan.
A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe declined to interfere with the NCLAT's January 15, 2026 decision upholding the NCLT Mumbai's November 28, 2025 order approving the scheme of arrangement proposed by National Spot Exchange Limited.
The appeal had been filed by creditor LJ Tanna Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., which holds about 0.26% voting share among creditors, challenging the approval of the scheme.
Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for LJ Tanna Enterprises submitted that while the creditor accepted being bound by the scheme approved under Section 230 of the Companies Act, it should not bar remedies available under other statutes such as the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), where assets worth over Rs 2200 crore have been attached. He argued that these proceedings were independent and initiated much earlier and sought liberty to pursue those remedies without disturbing the scheme approved by 91.35 percent creditors.
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for National Spot Exchange Ltd.
The dispute traces back to the 2013 collapse of NSEL, which resulted in payment defaults od Rs 5,600 Crore affecting nearly 13,000 investors. In order to settle investor claims, NSEL proposed a scheme under Section 230 of the Companies Act, which contemplated payment of about 42.34 percent of the admitted claims through recovery and utilisation of attached assets.
The NCLT Mumbai approved the scheme on November 28, 2025, noting that it received overwhelming support from creditors with over 90 percent by number and about 91.35 percent by value voting in favour.
Challenging the order, LJ Tanna Enterprises argued before the NCLAT that the scheme attempted to bypass statutory attachments under the MPID Act and forced dissenting creditors to waive their remaining claims and withdraw pending proceedings.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal on January 15, 2026, holding that the appellants held only 0.26 percent voting rights and therefore lacked locus standi to challenge the scheme under the statutory threshold. It further held that a scheme approved by the requisite majority is binding on all creditors, including dissenting ones.
Declining to interfere with these findings, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.