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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.