The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police Crime Branch has requested the home department to designate a special court for the trial of the alleged National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) scam.
Apart from the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the EOW has also invoked the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (MPID) Act in the case, which empowers the agency to attach the properties of the accused and liquidate them so that the investors can be paid the money that they have lost. According to EOW sources, the request was made in order to ensure a quick and speedy trial, as scope of the case is huge.
“We have asked the home department to designate a special court specially for the NSEL case and are awaiting a response on our request. The letter was written to the Home Department around a month ago. There were later some discussions with the Chief Minister’s office and we are hopeful of a positive response,” said Additional Commissioner of Police (EOW) Rajvardhan Sinha.
Sources added that another proposal sent by the EOW last year was also discussed during the same meetings with the CMO. The NSEL first came under the police scanner in early 2013, after thousands of investors approached the police alleging that they had been cheated out of their money, which was being used for personal gain by NSEL’s directors and promoters.
NSEL: HC allows govt to pass order
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday allowed the Centre to pass a final order on the proposed amalgamation of Jignesh Shah-promoted Financial Technologies Limited (FTIL) and National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) in the wake of the alleged NSEL scam.
The HC had, on November 27, 2014 ordered status quo on draft order from the Union ministry of corporate affairs for the merger. NSEL is a subsidiary of FTIL.
The FTIL had earlier challenged the constitutional validity of Section 396 of the Companies Act, 1956. The government had issued the draft order under Section 396 of the Companies Act. The section provides power to Centre to merge companies in public interest.
Singhvi had argued that the manner in which the Central government had passed the order, without taking their consent, was clearly arbitrary. ENS
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines