Financial Technologies India Ltd. vs National Spot Exchange Ltd. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Financial Technologies India Ltd. vs National Spot Exchange Ltd. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Commercial Suit No. 163 of 2016 disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to revive if the NCLT-approved settlement scheme does not fructify within 90 days (Clause 15.1.5 of the scheme); no order passed on Interim Application No. 7801 of 2025, which stands disposed of; refund of court fees, if any, as per rules.

Issue for consideration

Whether the reliefs sought in Interim Application No. 7801 of 2025 should be granted, viz.: liberty for Defendant No. 2 (assignee of Specified Creditors' Claims) to file a fresh suit against Defendant Nos. 10-14 upon the Settlement Trigger Event; vacation of all ad-interim/interim orders passed in the suit; and disposal of the suit. +1 more

Court's answer

No order is passed on Interim Application No. 7801 of 2025; the interim application is disposed of accordingly.

Ratio / Principle

Commercial Suit No. 163 of 2016 is disposed of as withdrawn, on the Plaintiff's clarification (accepted by the court) that it may be revived if the NCLT-approved settlement scheme does not fructify within 90 days in terms of Clause 15.1.5 of the scheme.

Key takeaways

Confirmed that on the settlement not fructifying, or the settlement trigger date not occurring, the suit will stand revived (sentence begun at para 5 of the order and completed across a page break).ratio¶¶35
Ancillary direction: refund of court fees, if any, as per rules.obiter¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Commercial Division (Arif S. Doctor, J., 5 March 2026): Commercial Suit No. 163 of 2016 (Cargill India Pvt Ltd v. National Spot Exchange Ltd. & Ors.) disposed of as withdrawn, it being undisputed that the Settlement Trigger Date under the settlement scheme approved by the NCLT had not yet occurred and, per the Plaintiff, nothing would survive in the suit; the suit may be revived if the scheme does not fructify within 90 days in terms of Clause 15.1.5 of the scheme. Interim Application No. 7801 of 2025 by Financial Technologies India Ltd (Applicant / Original Defendant No. 2, assignee of Specified Creditors' Claims), which sought liberty to file a fresh suit against Defendant Nos. 10-14 on the same cause of action upon the Settlement Trigger Event, vacation of all interim orders, and disposal of the suit - opposed by Defendant Nos. 10, 12 and 13 - was disposed of with the court expressly passing no order thereon. Refund of court fees, if any, as per rules.

1/3

23-IA-7801-25.DOC

Digitally signed by MEERA MEERA MAHESH MAHESH JADHAV JADHAV Date: 2026.03.06 18:52:42 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7801 OF 2025

IN

COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 163 OF 2016

Financial Technologies India Ltd ...Applicant In the matter of Cargill India Pvt Ltd. ...Plaintiff Versus

National Spot Exchange Ltd. & Ors ...Defendants

Mr. Noel Thomas i/b Link Legal for Plaintiff.

Mr. Shlok Parekh a/w Ms Aalisha Sharma a/w Mr. Ibrahim Shaikh i/b Vaish Associates for Defendant No.1.

Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vaibhav Bhure a/w Mr. Rahul Mantri and Ms. Prachurya Sahu i/b Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas for Applicant/Original Defendant No. 2.

Mr. Arshad Shaikh, Sr. Adocate alw Mr. Ranjit Agashe, Mr. Rajendra Jain, Mr. Pranil Lahigade, Mr.Aniket Pardeshi i/b Miss Vinsha Acharya for Defendant No.10.

Mr. Yogendra Rajgor, Mr. Arun Mehta, Mr. Skanda Rane i/b Akshar Laws for Defendant No.12.

Mr. Niranjan Vaghela for Defendant No.13.

Mr. Uttam Jaiswal (through VC) i/b Joby Mathew & Associats for Defendant No.16.

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 5th MARCH 2026

P.C.

1 This interim application seeks the following reliefs:

“a. That on and from the Settlement Trigger Event as defined in the

Meera Jadhav

2/3

23-IA-7801-25.DOC

Settlement Scheme:-

(i) Defendant No. 2 (being assignee of Specified Creditors' Claims) shall be at liberty to file a fresh suit against Defendant Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 in relation to the same cause of action;

ii) All ad-interim/interim orders passed in the present Suit shall stand vacated;

(iii) The present Suit shall stand disposed in terms of the above directions..”

2 The Interim Application was opposed by Mr. Shaikh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Defendant No.10, and Mr. Rajgor and Mr. Waghela, learned Counsel appearing for Defendant Nos.12 and 13, on the ground that no liberty ought to be granted to Defendant No.2 to continue the proceedings against their respective clients if the suit itself is being disposed of.

3 After hearing the matter at some length, it was not in dispute that the Settlement Trigger Date has not yet occurred. I therefore put to the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff as to whether, in view of the scheme approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), anything would survive in the present suit. In response, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the suit may be disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to revive the same in the event the scheme, as contemplated by the NCLT, does not fructify within 90 days, in terms of Clause 15.1.5 of the said scheme.

4 With this clarification, the suit is disposed of as withdrawn. I make it clear that I am not passing any order in the interim application. Interim application is accordingly disposed of.

5 Needless to state that on the settlement not fructifying or the settlement

Meera Jadhav

3/3

23-IA-7801-25.DOC

trigrred date not occasioned the suit will stand revive.

6 Refund of court fees, if any, as per rules.

[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]

Meera Jadhav