In the case of National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, a request for a probe into the role of the FMC chairman was made by NSEL. The lawsuit began in 2014 when an investor complained that he had been defrauded of a significant sum of money. He made a sizeable investment with a broker in 2012–2013 under the false pretence that NSEL was incredibly safe, risk-free, and could generate assured profits of 15–18% annually. The investor complained after the default on the NSEL platform in June 2013, and an FIR was launched under the MPID Act. The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) issued eleven chargesheets following a nine-year, in-depth investigation.
Ramesh was named full-time Chairman of the FMC in September 2012, and he held that position through September 2015, according to NSEL’s application. He participated actively in all FMC decisions pertaining to NSEL from 2010 to 2015. Additionally, according to NSEL, under Ramesh’s chairmanship, FMC went beyond the bounds of its authority which was only granted under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) and sent a false proposal to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in order to forcibly merge NSEL with its parent company, Financial Technologies Group, which is now known as 63 Moons Technology.NSEL asserted that FMC sent this proposal with the malicious goal of wrongfully causing loss to NSEL, its parent business, brokers, and defaulters.
Conclusion of the court
The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police was given the task of looking into Ramesh Abhishek’s involvement in the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) payment default problem by Special Judge AS Sayyad of the Mumbai court. Ramesh Abhishek is the Chairman of the Forward Markets Commission (FMC). On May 12, the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act’s special court granted NSEL’s request for a further probe into the role of the FMC chairman.
The special judge panel noted that Ramesh’s actions and inactions during his tenure as FMC Chairman at the time were rather questionable. The NSEL has identified a number of suspicious acts and omissions that need to be looked into further. If the case is looked into in light of the aforementioned circumstances, there won’t be any prejudice or harm to the prosecution. Instead, the judge predicted that the real truth will surface, helping to determine the criminal responsibility of the real offenders.
The court made it clear that it was merely granting the current motion for investigation and that it was not holding any negative views of Ramesh. It instructed the investigation officer to conduct an unbiased investigation without letting any observations of the court affect them. Additionally, the officer was instructed to submit a report on the case against Ramesh, ideally in less than 40 days. The Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs approved the merger based on the FMC’s deceptive plan. However, the Supreme Court finally overturned this judgement in 2019.