The document discusses a proposed merger between FTIL and NSEL, arguing that it is unjust towards FTIL shareholders and not in the public interest. It claims the merger tries to force approval without shareholder consent, that NSEL's liability is still uncertain under ongoing legal proceedings, and that the merger resolution should not come at the cost of shareholders' interests contrary to Companies Act regulations.

2. • Injustice towards Shareholders
• Is NSEL liable ?
• No action against NSEL Defaulters
• FTIL-NSEL merger : Not in Public Interest

3.  Proposed merger between FTIL & NSEL places shareholders
interests below that of Trading Clients
 Trying to force merger without shareholders approval is
unjust

4.  NSEL matter is sub judice
 There is still no solid proof that NSEL holds liability
towards affected parties
 Trading Clients are not creditors of NSEL

5.  Money trail has been linked & established to 22 defaulters
 Assets of some NSEL Defaulters are also attached & seized
by EOW
 No NSEL Defaulter companies are merged

6.  Resolution should not be at the cost of shareholders
 This is contrary to Section 396 of Companies Act which
states that only if merger is essential in public interest, can
two companies be merged
 Many shareholders representing the equity capital of FTIL
have voted against merger