Mansukhlal Hiralal & Company

NSEL Investors Action Group

NSEL was a commodity exchange that provided assured returns through its paired contracts to investors. However, the entire mechanism of NSEL was a scam and it was later discovered that there were no goods backing the trades executed on NSEL, as the management of NSEL along with the parent company 63 Moons Limited conspired with its trading members and duped nearly 13000 investors of their monies and investors lost monies to the tune of USD 750 million. NIAG (our client) is an association of thousands of investors who lost monies in the NSEL scam. Based on the above scam, the Government of Maharashtra in 2014 invoked the MPID Act and attached assets of approximately INR 68 Billion which included assets of (a) NSEL; (b) 63 Moons Limited; and (c) other 3rd party defaulters for the benefit of the investors who have lost monies under the NSEL Scam. This attachment was challenged by NSEL and 63 Moons via a writ before the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court passed an order stating that NSEL was not a Financial Establishment as per the provisions of the MPID Act and therefore all the attachment of NSEL and 63 Moons needs to be set aside. The said judgment severely prejudiced the investors as the attachment of assets may well be lifted and assets will no longer be preserved to be liquidated. The Firm represented NIAG in the Supreme Court where the client challenged the judgment by the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court and allowed the appeal filed by NIAG. The Supreme Court judgment allowed the appeal preferred by NIAG and the same is of significant importance to the investors at large, as the prime accused company NSEL and its parent company viz. 63 Moons Technologies Limited has been held as a “Financial Establishment”.

Cipla Limited

The Firm successfully assisted Cipla Limited (“Client”) in their transaction for acquiring freehold land situated in Pune. In this regard, the freehold land sought to be acquired by the Client was in the ownership of an aggregator who had, in turn, purchased the land in parcels from various landowners. The freehold land (sought to be purchased) was an agricultural land. Further, the title of the aggregator vis-à-vis the freehold land was not clear due to certain pending consideration amounts owned by the aggregator to the various landowners. The Firm first assisted the Client with the title certification process i.e., by conducting due diligence on the land. Thereafter, the Firm advised the Client regarding the risks involved, conversion of land from ‘agricultural’ to ’non-agricultural’, and also, regarding the structuring of the transaction and the payments involved. The Firm drafted and finalized the Sale Deed executed between the Client and the aggregator.

Travel Blue Limited (UK) and Travel Blue India Private Limited

Advised Travel Blue Limited (“Client”) a very well-known and renowned brand worldwide, for travel accessories. Travel Blue had received a design registration for one of their neck pillows called “Tranquillity Neck Pillow”. This pillow was one of its kind for its ergonomic shape and design. Travel Blue sold this pillow worldwide and captured a good portion of the market share because of its eye-catching shape and design. The Client has obtained design registration for its neck pillow in many parts of the world since 2015. One Peps Industries Private Limited (“Peps”) replicated the design of the Tranquillity Pillow and sold a deceptively similar pillow called “travel neck pillow” on various e-commerce websites and stores. The Firm sent a cease-and-desist notice to Peps to stop the sale of this deceptively similar pillow. However, Peps failed to do so. Accordingly, the Firm filed an infringement suit against Peps before the Bombay High Court. The Firm represented the Client before the Bombay High Court and obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction (“Order”) in favour of the Client, restraining Peps from listing and selling the deceptively similar pillow until the adjudication and final disposal of the suit. Vide the said Order, the Hon’ble Court appointed an Additional Special Receiver to execute the Order in the Bangalore and Coimbatore warehouse/unit.

Deluxe Recycling India Private Limited

Assisted and advised Deluxe Recycling India Private Limited in raising funds of USD 5 million (around INR 410 million) through the issue of equity shares / CCPS. The Firm advised on the investment agreement, employment agreements, business transfer agreement, and the patent license agreement. Further, the Firm also carried out due diligence for the purpose of the disclosure letter.

IG Berries Private Limited

Assisted and advised IG Berries Private Limited (“Client”) and the existing promoters in respect of the Share subscription agreement for an investment of USD 20 Million (around INR 1.6 Billion) around  by Hortifruit S.A (USD . The Firm has drafted the Shareholders Agreement and the Share Subscription Agreement and has also advised the Client on Foreign Direct Investment. The Firm has drafted various employment policies for the Client as well.

Securities Exchange Board of India

We have been regularly advising and representing the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) before the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT). In one of the recent cases, SEBI conducted an investigation into the scrip of Ruchi Soya Limited. Pursuant to the investigation, SEBI initiated adjudication proceedings against BP Equities Private Limited and Jamson Securities (“Appellant”) of which Mr Shaunak Shah was the director. SEBI found that BP Equities Private Limited and Mr Shah were engaging in unfair and fraudulent trade practices norms by misleading the order book by buy orders of 14.87 crore shares which have been rejected by the exchange system for insufficiency of margin and some of the trades were deleted by the BP Equities. It was also observed that the trades placed by the Appellants had created a misleading appearance of orders in Ruchi Soya’s scrip.  Being SEBI registered intermediaries in the capacity of stock brokers, the Appellants failed to exercise due skill and care while placing the orders in the scrip of Ruchi Soya. Thus, SEBI had imposed a penalty on the Appellants ranging between INR 500,000 to INR 2,000,000 which was upheld by the SAT by an Order dated 2 February 2023. It is one of the land mark case defending the securities regulatory.