Last year, group told to deposit Rs. 17, 400 crore with 15% interest with SEBI
The Supreme Court has rejected the Sahara group’s plea to review the August 31, 2012 order by a Bench which directed it to deposit Rs.17,400 crore with 15 per cent interest with the Securities and Exchange Board of India within three months. This order has not been complied with.
Nor did Sahara adhere to a December 5, 2012 order, a breather given by another Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir, asking it to deposit Rs. 5,120 crore immediately and pay investors in two instalments — Rs. 10,000 crore in the first week of January 2013 and the balance including interest in the first week of February.
The Bench passed this order when the Sahara group sought more time to repay the amount to the investors — money it had collected through Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCD).
‘All contentions examined’
Rejecting the review petitions filed by both the Sahara India Real Estate Corporation and the Sahara Housing Investment Corporation, the same Bench, headed by Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan, which passed the August 31, 2012 order, said on Tuesday: “We find none of the grounds has been made out for review of our judgment. We also do not find any inconsistency in the views expressed by both of us [the other judge on the Bench was Justice J.S. Khehar]. On the other hand, all contentions, legally and factually, raised by the appellants were examined, addressed and answered on all possible angles and dimensions. Applications are stated to have been filed for placing new facts and documents on record for which the ingredients mentioned in Order XLVII(1)(c) have also not been satisfied. Even otherwise, all records placed before us were meticulously examined and dealt with.”
As a sequel to the dismissal of the review petitions, “applications seeking permission for open court listing, intervention and directions/stay also stand dismissed.”
On the review petition filed by the Universal Investors Association, the Bench said: “The applicants have no locus standi to move it. Further, no grounds have been made out calling for review of our judgment.”