State of Maharashtra vs 63 Moons Technologies Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 372

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT, BELA M TRIVEDI
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
63 Moons Technologies Ltd. – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Advocate, Mr. Geo Joseph, Advocate, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Advocate, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Tathagat Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Jahnvi Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Prashant Rawat, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Mahajan, Advocate, Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Sanjana Saddy, Advocate, Mr. Bhushan Shah, Advocate and Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Ankur Saigal, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Lakhawat, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Vora, Advocate, Ms. Misha Rohatgi, Advocate, Mr. Amit Bhandari, Advocate, Ms. Mansi Taneja, Advocate, Ms. Ayushi Amod, Advocate, Mr. Karan Verma, Advocate, Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Advocate, Ms. Anindita Mitra, Advocate, Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate, Mr. Sangram Singh, Advocate, Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, Advocate,M/s. Legal Options, Advocate

Table of Content
1. nsel's operations and legality (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5)
2. events leading to the property attachment (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. arguments from parties regarding nsel's classification (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. analysis of mpid act's framework (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. understanding the definitions and operations under nsel (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
6. interpretation of deposits according to mpid act (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
7. legal implications of evidence presented (Para 35 , 36 , 37)
8. conclusion on the validity of attachment notifications (Para 66 , 67)

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

1. The appeal arises from a judgment dated 22 August 2019 of the Bombay High Court, by which certain notifications attaching the property of the respondent under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (MPID Act) have been quashed. The respondent holds 99.99% of the shareholding of National Spot Exchange Ltd (NSEL). At the core of the dispute is whether NSEL is a 'financial establishment' within the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 372

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT, BELA M TRIVEDIState of Maharashtra – AppellantVersus63 Moons Technologies Ltd. – Respondent

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT, BELA M TRIVEDI
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
63 Moons Technologies Ltd. – Respondent