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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...