# Jagmohan Garg & Ors. vs. National Spot Exchange Ltd & Ors.

> HC judgment dated 2026-08-18. Citation: TCN-2026-HC-00050. Multiple applications and writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 18 Aug 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-HC-00050
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/bombay-high-court-panaji/jagmohan-garg-vs-ms-mohan-india-private-limited-dhdjh

## Summary

### Background

Multiple applications and writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, raising a common question regarding the applicability of the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to criminal proceedings initiated under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) against directors/natural persons. The representative case involved National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) as the complainant against M/s Mohan India Private Limited (A1) and its directors (A2, A3) for the dishonour of a cheque issued to discharge a liability under a settlement award. Applicant A2, a director of A1, filed an application for personal insolvency resolution process under Section 94 of the IBC

…

## Facts

National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL), the complainant, is a company providing an electronic trading platform for spot contracts in commodities.

M/s Mohan India Private Limited (A1) is a trading and clearing member of NSEL.

Applicant (A2) and A3 are directors and authorized signatories of A1, managing its day-to-day affairs and allegedly liable for its acts.

A1 defaulted on a Settlement Award dated 30th October 2013, with Rs. 124.50 Crores due as of 10th March 2014.

A1 issued a cheque for Rs. 30 Crores, signed by A2 and A3, which was dishonoured on 28th February 2014, due to 'funds insufficient' and 'account freezed'.

NSEL lodged a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I. Act, 1881, against A2 and A3.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, applies to the …

**Ratio:** The interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC, 2016, does not operate to stay

…

**Reasoning:** The Supreme Court, in cases like Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka and Rakesh Bhanot, has

…

**Interpretation:** The expression 'any legal action or proceeding in respect of any debt' in

…

**Application:** The applications/petitions seeking a stay on Section 138 proceedings against

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** N. J. JAMAD…
- **Appellants:** Jagmohan…; Prashant B…; +3 more
- **Respondents:** M/s Mohan India…; National Spot…; +1 more
- **Other parties:** A3 (unnamed…; Arun Kumar…; +1 more
- **Advocates:** Mr Sudeep P…; Abhiraj…; +29 more

## Timeline

- **2013-07-31 — NSEL Circular…**: Complainant (NSEL) directed that outstanding positions in contracts would be settled by…
- **2013-10-30 — Settlement Awa…**: A Settlement Award was passed under Section 73 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 96 — Interim- moratorium](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-96)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/bombay-high-court-panaji/jagmohan-garg-vs-ms-mohan-india-private-limited-dhdjh