"None of the independent directors attended. No notice was issued. The November 2009 meeting did not happen. But it has been 'minutesised' by Sinha as if it actually happened. I don't know why he did it. Only Sinha can answer this," a senior group executive told Business Standard.
Sinha has been in custody for the past two months.
The latest twist in the saga, which may emerge a key defence in the court cases against the regulatory orders, is similar to Ranbaxy Laboratories' tussle with the US Food and Drug Administration---a meeting of the board of directors, purported to be held in a foreign location referred to by a whistleblower, did not appear in company records.
The November 16, 2009, NSEL board meeting is crucial because it figures in the FMC's recent "fit and proper" order. This was the board meeting in which the long-dated (T+25, T+36 days forward) contracts, launched by NSEL on September 19, 2009, were ratified, according to NSEL records. These long-dated contracts enabled the "paired trades" at the centre of the NSEL crisis.
A senior FMC official said, "I don't think such an argument was put before us. We are going by official records." In its order dated December 17, the FMC said, "The commission, vide its letter dated September 16, 2013, called for the agenda notes and the minutes of the meetings of the board of directors of NSEL. Perusal of the minutes of the meetings of board of directors of NSEL, received by the commission on September 17, 2013, reveal such trades which provided for delivery and settlement beyond 11 days were first allowed in September 2009, which was ratified by the board of directors of NSEL on November 16, 2009. The board minutes dated December19, 2009, ratified trading of T+25 contracts. Subsequently, a number of such contracts were introduced on NSEL."
In a report, the Registrar of Companies said the long-dated contracts were illegal, adding the board had ratified these. "This action was ratified by the board on November 16, 2009, though it was not legally authorised to do so," the registrar had said. It added the permission to trade long-dated contracts "was never discussed" in any of the director's reports, though it "was required to do so".
The executive quoted earlier said there were several issues with some other board meeting records, too, and these had already been communicated to the police. "Other board meeting minutes talk about approval of members being ratified. But the names or details of the members are not given," he added.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
