Skip to main content

Sahara cannot be trusted any more: Supreme Court

Holding that it was playing 'hide and seek' and cannot be trusted any more, the Supreme Court today directed the Sahara group to hand over title deeds of its properties worth Rs 20,000 crore to SEBI warning that failure to comply would mean Subrata Roy cannot leave India.


Making it clear that there is no "escape" from depositing the investors' money with the market regulator, the apex court also asked the group to also give valuation reports of the properties to SEBI which will verify worth of assets.

A bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar, which was about to restrain Roy from leaving the county till documents are handed over, however, said that he will not be allowed to go abroad without its permission if order is not complied in three weeks.

Roy's counsel had, earlier, pleaded that his reputation and business will be hit.

"You have driven everybody round. From day one restraint was ours," the bench replied when Roy's counsel C A Sundaram pleaded that his behaviour has never caused any suspicion.

"You indulge too much in hide and seek. We cannot trust you any more," the bench said adding "There is no escape for you and the money has to come."

The bench, however, assured the Sahara that its interests will be protected if investors money is paid.

"Rest assured that we will protect you if you give the money," it said and posted the case for hearing on November 20 when it would consider passing further orders on what to be done to the property, whose title deeds will be handed over to SEBI.

At the outset, Sundaram submitted that it is not possible to pay Rs 20,000 in cash and the company would liquidate if it is directed to pay cash.

"I am finished if I have to pay Rs 19,000 crore cash. My company would liquidate. I am over as company if I have to pay the case," he said adding that banks are also not willing to grant loan as they do not consider it safe.

He gave details of properties including Ambey Valley and said that title deeds of various assets would run in thousands of pages as 30,000 title deeds are there.

SEBI, however, expressed reservation over taking title deeds and said that the group itself should sell the properties and hand over the cash to it.

But the bench asked SEBI to go through the title deeds and valuation records of the properties to be handed over to it by Sahara.

"Examine the title deeds and find out its worth. You can also examine how safe it is," the bench told SEBI's counsel Arvind Datar, who submitted that proceedings for evaluation of property would give rise to may other issues and would amount to going into a "mine field".

"Everything will be done. You are underestimating the Supreme Court," the bench told Datar.

The court was hearing three contempt petitions filed by SEBI against Roy, the two firms--Sahara India Real Estate Corp Ltd (SIREC) and Sahara India Housing Investment Corp Ltd (SHIC)--and their directors.

It had on August 31 last year directed the Sahara group to refund Rs.24,000 crore by November end. The deadline was further extended and the companies were directed to deposit Rs 5,120 crore immediately and Rs 10,000 crore in first week of January and the remaining amount in first week of February.

The group, which had handed over the draft of Rs 5,120 crore on December 5, has failed to pay the rest of the amount.

It had directed the two companies to refund the money to their investors within three months with 15 per cent interest per annum. It had also said SEBI can attach the properties and freeze the bank accounts of the companies if they fail to refund the amount.

The two companies, their promoter Roy and directors Vandana Bhargava, Ravi Shankar Dubey and Ashok Roy Choudhary were told to refund the collected money to the regulator.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Sahara-cannot-be-trusted-any-more-Supreme-Court/articleshow/24827352.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil