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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

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...