An overwhelming majority of the affected traders have voted in favour of a proposed ₹1,950 crore one-time settlement with the National Spot Exchange Ltd (NSEL), paving the way for potentially ending the 13-year-old payments crisis.
The settlement—filed by NSEL with the backing of its parent 63 Moons Technologies before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)—received support from 92.81% (5,682 traders) of the traders by number and 91.35% by value, according to a statement by the exchange. The e-voting process concluded on 17 May.
NSEL’s collapse in 2013 had left over 13,000 investors with claims amounting to ₹5,600 crore. While some payouts have been made over the years, larger investors await final settlement. The latest proposal, introduced in November 2024, seeks to distribute ₹1,950 crore—roughly 42% of the ₹4,650 crore still owed—subject to final approval.
“This is the major step in the distribution of money to the specified creditors,” said Sharad Kumar Saraf, chairman of the NSEL Investors Forum (NIF). The voting results reflect an overwhelming interest among investors to recover at least part of their investments, he said.
Originally proposed by the NIF, the scheme seeks to compensate traders in proportion to their outstanding dues as of 31 July 2024. Once implemented, it will also lead to the withdrawal of ongoing litigation and the assignment of all creditor rights to 63 Moons.
The NCLT in its 8 April order had directed the e-voting process and appointed Ashwini Gupta as the scrutinizer and retired IRS officer Mukesh Mital as chairperson.
S. Rajendran, managing director and chief executive of 63 Moons, expressed optimism that the “first-of-its-kind settlement” would receive necessary regulatory support.
According to legal experts, the settlement’s fate now rests with the NCLT.
“With over 91% of affected traders backing the ₹1,950 crore one-time settlement, the OTS proposal has cleared the most critical hurdle—creditor approval,” said Alok Kumar, founder and senior partner at THS–The Law Firm. However, for the scheme to attain finality, it must now pass judicial scrutiny. “The tribunal’s sanction is essential under Sections 230–232 of the Companies Act, as this isn’t merely a private contract but a court-monitored compromise scheme.”
Abhinav Agnihotri, partner at Burgeon Law, said while the majority backing strengthens the case, dissenting creditors—roughly 9%—can still object during NCLT hearings. “The NCLT is not a rubber stamp. It can reject the scheme if it’s found to be unfair, discriminatory, legally defective, or against public policy.”
Even after NCLT clearance, challenges could arise. “The scheme may be delayed in case NCLAT is inclined to pass any interim order staying the operation of the NCLT order,” Agnihotri said.
Still, experts said the proposal represents a pivotal development. “If the court gives its approval, it could help resolve a decade-old crisis and set a precedent for negotiated settlements in large-scale financial disputes,” Kumar said.
