Recently, the Apex Court order set aside a Bombay High Court judgment approving the merger of crisis hit NSEL with parent company, 63 Moons Technologies Limited, formerly known as FTIL, in public interest under Section 396 of the Companies Act
India Incorporated heaved a collective sigh of relief after the Supreme Court (SC) on April 30, 2019, in a landmark judgment, dismissed a Bombay High Court (HC) ruling approving a Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), Government of India, move, to merge the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) with its parent company, 63 Moons Technologies Limited.
The apex court set aside the 222-page Bombay High Court order dated December 4, 2017. The MCA had passed the order largely on the basis of the Grant Thornton Report and the flawed “Not Fit & Proper” recommendation from the erstwhile commodity markets’ regulator, Forward Markets Commission (FMC), under the pretext of public interest.
In the event, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court order dated December 4, 2017. The MCA had passed the order based on the flawed recommendation from by the erstwhile commodity markets regulator, Forward Markets Commission (FMC), under the pretext of “public interest”. If the merger order would have been passed, it would have irreversibly impaired the concept of public interest, set a dangerous precedent for the corporate world and hurt business sentiments of both domestic as well as foreign investors alike.
How NSEL Went Under
It was in July 2013 that a `5,600-crore payment default crisis surfaced at NSEL after about two dozen counterparties defaulted in payment obligations. After all investigating agencies such as the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), carried out detailed investigations, they stated that not a single paisa went to NSEL, FTIL or its founder Jignesh Shah.
ãã®èšäºã¯ Legal Era ã® June -July 2019 çã«æ²èŒãããŠããŸãã
7 æ¥éã® Magzter GOLD ç¡æãã©ã€ã¢ã«ãéå§ããŠãäœåãã®å³éžããããã¬ãã¢ã ã¹ããŒãªãŒã9,000 以äžã®éèªãæ°èã«ã¢ã¯ã»ã¹ããŠãã ããã
ãã§ã«è³Œèªè ã§ã ?  ãµã€ã³ã€ã³
ãã®èšäºã¯ Legal Era ã® June -July 2019 çã«æ²èŒãããŠããŸãã
7 æ¥éã® Magzter GOLD ç¡æãã©ã€ã¢ã«ãéå§ããŠãäœåãã®å³éžããããã¬ãã¢ã ã¹ããŒãªãŒã9,000 以äžã®éèªãæ°èã«ã¢ã¯ã»ã¹ããŠãã ããã
ãã§ã«è³Œèªè ã§ã? ãµã€ã³ã€ã³
If You Think Positive Covid Is A Big Opportunity
Senior Vice President and Head of Legal, ESSAR CAPITAL, Badrinath Durvasula, holds forth on his professional journey, the essence of leadership, working from home, books and moreâŠ
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
JOINT VENTURE TRANSACTIONS
NEW ARBITRATION RULES
PUBLISHED BY THE LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION (LCIA) AND INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (ICC)
M&A in the time of COVID and beyond
What is clear for those engaging in cross-border M&A is that countries around the world are becoming increasingly protective of their economies and industries, with new rules being introduced and existing rules being more widely applied
SWITZERLAND A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO FRAUD
Swiss law interprets the offense of fraud in a special way where in addition to the characteristics of deception and damage as known in many jurisdictions, a qualified lie, i.e. a malicious approach, is required
JOINT VENTURE DISPUTES MEDIATING
Mediation has shown itself to be a powerful tool for bringing a speedy and effective end to crossborder disputes while preserving the commercial relationship between them.
Recognition of HONG KONG INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS IN MAINLAND CHINA
A TEST CASE IN THE MAKING?
CONFIDENTIALITY IN ARBITRATION: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SINGAPORE
Two recent developments in Singapore case law and legislation reflect a willingness to preserve confidentiality related obligations in all arbitrations
ESSENTIAL GOODS SERVICES UNDER IBC
WHAT DOES IT ESSENTIALLY MEAN?
A BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S NEW VISION FOR THE AMERICAN WORKPLACE
A LOOK AT THE KEY CHANGES PRESIDENT-ELECT BIDEN IS LIKELY TO MAKE ONCE HE TAKES OFFICE