Bombay HC to Decide on PMLA Attachments Against 63 Moons Following ₹1,950 Cr NSEL Settlement
The ₹1,950 crore settlement is intended to resolve long-pending claims arising from a commodities market default.
The Bombay High Court is to consider whether attachments ordered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against assets linked to a commodities exchange default should continue, in light of a ₹1,950 crore settlement scheme approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for resolving claims of affected traders.
The appellant, M/s 63 Moons Technologies Limited, approached the High Court by filing a criminal appeal under Section 42 of the PMLA challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the said Act. The matter traces its origin to the payment default that occurred in August 2013 on the platform of the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL), which triggered multiple proceedings under various statutes, including the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act (MPID) and the PMLA.
In the course of enforcement proceedings, properties of the appellant were provisionally attached by the Directorate of Enforcement. Parallelly, a scheme of arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 was formulated between NSEL and specified creditors, proposing a settlement amount of ₹1,950 crore to be paid proportionately to eligible traders.
The Mumbai Bench of NCLT, sanctioned the scheme subject to clarifications that the approval would not automatically override subsisting attachment orders or terminate criminal proceedings. Pursuant to this development, the appeal was filed.
On behalf of the appellant, submitted that the settlement scheme approved by the NCLT represents a complete and structured resolution of claims arising from the payment default. The scheme expressly contemplates satisfaction of claims linked to proceedings under the PMLA and makes the disposal of the pending criminal appeal and connected writ petition a prerequisite for its effective implementation.
Opposing the plea, Advocate Chetan Kapadia, appearing for the investors’ forum, and C. K. Pendse, representing the Directorate of Enforcement, submitted that approval of a scheme by the NCLTl does not, by itself, nullify attachments ordered under the PMLA.
The respondents relied on the specific clarifications recorded by the NCLT that the sanction of the scheme would not dilute or override subsisting attachment orders and would not amount to quashing or termination of criminal proceedings. Thus, any release of properties must strictly follow orders passed by the competent court under the PMLA after due consideration of statutory requirements.
The Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Shyam C. Chandak noted that the operative scheme of arrangement approved by the NCLT provides a detailed mechanism for settlement of claims and acknowledges the pendency of proceedings under the PMLA. Further, the Tribunal had sanctioned the scheme with safeguards, clarifying that attachments and criminal proceedings would continue to operate unless modified by appropriate judicial orders.
However, the Court refrained from passing immediate directions on release of the attached properties. Subsequently, granted time to the enforcement agency to obtain necessary instructions.
Accordingly, the Interim Application seeking implementation of the scheme and consequential reliefs was directed to be re-notified, keeping all issues open for consideration at the next hearing.
