NSEL Investors Associations today asked the government to pass the final order for merger of FTIL and NSEL and quickly supersede the current board of FTIL.
"Merger of FTIL and NSEL is in the public interest and FTIL Board should be superseded. A draft merger order between NSEL-FTIL has already been passed by the Ministry of Company Affairs (MCA) and there is also an attempt to supersede FTIL board before Company law Board (CLB)," NSEL Investots Forum Chairman Sharad kumar Saraf told reporters here.
The concept of corporate entity was evolved to encourage and promote trade and commerce, but not to commit illegalities or to defraud people.
"It is a settled position under common law that any fraud or crime is against public interest. Therefore, by ordering the amalgamation and thereby mitigating the fraud would per se be in the public interest. Besides the merger will save about Rs 400 crore of PSU money and about Rs 1,650 crore as income tax set offs for the Government Exchequer," he said.
In last 19 months NSEL investors have received only 6 per cent and practically nothing in last 1 year, he said.
A lot of needy investors are passing through immense crisis and financial pressure.
"We have immense faith in the government and are confident that its various arms will ensure recovery for the investors and will end their sufferings," he said.
Hence, he said, the forum request MCA to pass their final merger order between FTIL-NSEL and quickly supersede the current board of FTIL, which is nothing but extension of Jignesh Shah mired in various acts of fraud and deceit.
"Besides, the current chairman of FTIL Venkat Chary is the same person under whose chairmanship about Rs 900 crore were siphoned from FTIL as brought out in PWC special audit ordered by FMC," he pointed out.
He further said that a quick supersession of FTIL board and merger with NSEL will send positive signals to investors worldwide that Government of India means business and has zero tolerance for fraud.
Earlier in the week, NSEL officials had refused to comment on the merger issue as the matter in sub judice.
