New Delhi, Company 63 Moons Technologies welcomed the Supreme Court judgement on Tuesday, ruling against the government decision to merge its crisis-ridden and loss-making subsidiary National Spot Exchange Ltd (NSEL) with it.
The company’s MD S. Rajendran said that “the company has been articulating in the past that the merger will serve no purpose for the stakeholders of either NSEL or FTIL but to benefit only a few people with vested interest. As such, our stand has been fully vindicated”.
The court said, in the judgement, that this is a case “where there is complete non-application of mind by the authority assessing compensation to the rights and interests which the shareholders and creditors of FTIL have and which are referred to in Section 396(3) of the Act. This being the case, it is clear that Section 396(3) has not been followed either in letter or in spirit”.
The apex court had allowed an appeal against a Bombay High Court order that upheld the decision of merger of 63 Moons Technologies Ltd, earlier known as Financial Technologies India Ltd (FTIL) till May 16, 2016, and the NSEL — a wholly-owned subsidiary of FTIL.
Jignesh Shah, Chairman Emeritus and Mentor, 63 Moons Technologies, said: “Satyamev Jayate. We have always had full faith in the Indian judiciary and our courts. Finally, truth has prevailed.”
Venkat Chary, the company’s Chairman, said: “Justice has finally prevailed in the reasoned and well-articulated judgment of the Supreme Court which has upheld the rule of law by laying down the elaborate criterion for what is public interest and due process.”
The company said that the order of the Bombay High Court was supported by the Central government mainly on three grounds — restoring/ safeguarding public confidence; giving effect to business reality of the case by consolidating the business of FTIL and NSEL, and preventing FTIL from distancing itself from NSEL; and, for facilitating NSEL in recovering dues from defaulters by pooling human and financial resources of FTIL and NSEL.
It noted that that the apex court held that the first and second grounds mentioned by the Bombay High Court, were not even contained in the Draft Order of Amalgamation.
