Business » Companies

Updated: December 3, 2012 22:11 IST

Your intention is shaky, Supreme Court tells Sahara

J. Venkatesan
Comment (10)   ·   print   ·   T  T  
The Supreme Court rapped Sahara group for not refunding Rs 27,000 crore to investors, who had put their money into its two companies. File photo
The Hindu The Supreme Court rapped Sahara group for not refunding Rs 27,000 crore to investors, who had put their money into its two companies. File photo

Asks it to spell out its position to refund over Rs.24,000 cr with interest

The Supreme Court, on Monday, while pulling up Sahara group for the delay in refunding the deposits to its investors, asked it to spell out on Tuesday whether it would be in a position to refund the entire amount of over Rs.24,000 crores with interest within a week.

Even as senior counsel Gopal Subramanium was explaining the background about the case, a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justices S. S. Nijjar and J. Chelameswar told the counsel “You have no intention of returning the investors money. Your intention is very shaky. Your every step is shaky. We can’t interpret our order according to your need. You are justifying your conduct, which is not justifiable. Unfortunately you are doing so”.

The Bench then asked Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Ltd (SHICL) to inform on Tuesday whether they would be able to refund the money or not.

The Sahara real estate companies have challenged the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) order rejecting their plea to direct its registrar accept a pay order of Rs.5,120 crore that it had to deposit to SEBI towards the payment of investors’ deposits by November 30.

Senior counsel Arvind Datar, appearing for the market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), told the court that they had not deposited any money as directed by the Supreme Court. He submitted that Sahara companies had invested the investors’ money in various projects across 63 cities and they were claiming that “they have refunded everything (the investors’ money) except Rs.5,000 crore.”

Mr. Datar told the court that SEBI had filed a contempt petition that Sahara group of companies had not complied with the Supreme Court order. He said “They have to pay Rs.17,000 crore plus 15 per cent interest thereon”. Even as he opposed Sahara’s petition, the CJI said “we are more concerned about the common man, who has invested his money in the companies. If you (SEBI) want me to send them to jail, we would send them”. Hearing will continue on Tuesday.

More In: Companies | Business

Implementation of any final SC order in any case is the crux of the whole issue.What mechanism will be deployed to implement every word/spirit of the final orders of SC in any case of lingering disputes.who will implement it? who are accountable for not implementing the SC final orders?Many people who got final SC orders in their favour are not at all in a position to get the relief they sought which means the orders of the highest courts of this land are not at all obeyed & who "cares for SC " is the widely prevalent attitude.How &what are the plans with SC to erase this stigma&total
wanton disrespect to SC.I would suggest that SC in order to safe guard the fundamentals rights of public enshrined in the constitution get down from its armchair,tread on the groundlevel along with police force &relevant administration machinery & face the violators to take them into task to implement its own order on the spot itself.This is the only way it can instill hope amongst the public.

from:  ramachandrasekaran
Posted on: Dec 4, 2012 at 11:07 IST

The OFCDs are not "optimally fully convertible debentures" but Optionally Fully
Convertible Debentures.

from:  Rajee V
Posted on: Sep 1, 2012 at 16:34 IST

I think the amount which have to refunded by Sahara is only Rs.17,400
Crores instead of Rs.24,400 Crores.
As supreme court Order "We, therefore, find, on facts as well as on law, no illegality in the proceedings initiated by SEBI as well as in the order passed by SEBI (WTM) dated 23.6.2011 and SAT dated 18.10.2011 and they are accordingly upheld. The order passed by this Court in C.A. No.9813 of 2011 filed by SIREC and in C.A. No.9833 of 2011 filed by SHICL, praying for extending the time for refund of the amount of Rs.17,400 crores, as ordered by SAT, stands vacated and consequently the entire amount, including the amount mentioned above will have to be refunded by Saharas with 15% interest. We have gone through each other’s judgment and fully concur with the reasoning and the views expressed
therein and issue the following directions in modification of the
directions issued by SEBI (WTM) which was endorsed by SAT:"

from:  Atul kumar
Posted on: Sep 1, 2012 at 12:01 IST

This judgement is definitely a milestone in the history of Indian judiciary system. As far as investment business is concerned, people having muscle and politic connection had started to take common man and as well as authority, as granted. Role played by SEBI is also needs to be praised and it can an exemplary case for other government institute who wants to put law and order situation in systematic manner. First time in India, recognition of people as consumer has been addressed up to that greater extant. Hope it is beginning and same efforts will be taken in other sector also.

from:  Bishwjeet kamal
Posted on: Sep 1, 2012 at 08:37 IST

Beautiful and a wonderful very aptly worded excellent judgement in India. Hats off to the Honourable Judges. Others engaged in such dubious and cheating exercises must learn a lesson from this. If our country has to stand with its head high among all Nations, such good thought provoking judgments should be pronounced in many corrupt cases where multi million crores of rupees are swindled by unscrupulous persons.

from:  krarunachalam
Posted on: Sep 1, 2012 at 08:29 IST

Chief Justice of Supreme court few days back opined that judgments
have to stand the test of implementation. This is just works against
that principle.

How can a company return so much money. They want the company to be
liquidated.Who is going to loose. Is it possible to sell off so many
assets, what would happen to the value of these assets.

I am afraid , SC should have a mechanism to review some critical judgement before they are delivered .

from:  CVR Murthy
Posted on: Sep 1, 2012 at 06:59 IST

is there any suggestion from the hindu reader about the this thing ,so that poor can be saved.

from:  shiv shankar sharma
Posted on: Sep 1, 2012 at 03:55 IST

Kudos to the Judiciary... What a landmark judgement. If only it was taken in USA there would
be more pensioners with money in their bank

from:  Gokul
Posted on: Sep 1, 2012 at 00:44 IST

Justice Radhakrishnan said: “OFCDs issued by Saharas were public issue of
debentures, hence securities. Once there is an intention to issue shares or debentures
to the public, it is/was obligatory to make an application to one or more recognised
stock exchanges, prior to such issue. Saharas could not have filed the RHP or any
prospectus with the RoC [Registrar of Companies] without submitting the same to the
SEBI under Clauses 1.4, 2.1.1. and 2.1.4 of the DIP Guidelines.”

~ This is a milestone in matters, financial. That the Saharas 'desertified' the rural poor
is bad enough. But, the indirect connivance of those in power in Sahara's 'doubtful,
dubious and questionable' (I cite Justice Khehar,) affairs must also be probed and the
guilty punished.

from:  Soundararajan Srinivasa
Posted on: Aug 31, 2012 at 23:49 IST

Dug deep in U.P. after creating a politically conducive clout to defend
themselves, the Subrotos bought immunity for brazen indulgence in
varieties of corrupt practices and over the years built the Sahara
empire..and no questions asked by any Govt.?
Thank God ..atlast are caught by tail now.
Wonder what would happene if Supreme Court of India is not proactive !
Perhaps, alike many other big sharks the Sahara story would have also
trailed ..lived happily thereafter types?

from:  R. Narayanmoorthy
Posted on: Aug 31, 2012 at 23:30 IST
Show all comments
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor