AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (Formerly Also Known As Sahara India C Junxion Corporation Limited). 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow v. Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited (Formerly Also Known As Sahara India Trustee Company Limited) Sahara India Point, Cts 40 & 44, S.V Road, Goregaon (West)

    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 others 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:

    1. Saharas (SIRECL & SHICL) would refund the amounts collected through RHPs dated 13.3.2008 and 16.10.2009 along with interest @ 15% per annum to SEBI from the date of receipt of the subscription amount till the date of repayment, within a period of three months from today, which shall be deposited in a Nationalized Bank bearing maximum rate of interest.

    2. Saharas are also directed to furnish the details with supporting documents to establish whether they had refunded any amount to the persons who had subscribed through RHPs dated 13.3.2008 and 16.10.2009 within a period of 10 (ten) days from the pronouncement of this order and it is for the SEBI (WTM) to examine the correctness of the details furnished.

    3. We make it clear that if the documents produced by Saharas are Not found genuine or acceptable, then the SEBI (WTM) would proceed as if the Saharas had not refunded any amount to the real and genuine subscribers who had invested money through RHPs dated 13.3.2008 and 16.10.2009.

    4. Saharas are directed to furnish all documents in their custody, particularly, the application forms submitted by subscribers, the approval and allotment of bonds and all other documents to SEBI so as to enable it to ascertain the genuineness of the subscribers as well as the amounts deposited, within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of pronouncement of this order.

    5. SEBI (WTM) shall have the liberty to engage Investigating Officers, experts in Finance and Accounts and other supporting staff to carry out directions and the expenses for the same will be borne by Saharas and be paid to SEBI.

    6. SEBI (WTM) shall take steps with the aid and assistance of Investigating Authorities/Experts in Finance and Accounts and other supporting staff to examine the documents produced by Saharas so as to ascertain their genuineness and after having ascertained the same, they shall identify subscribers who had invested the money on the basis of RHPs dated 13.3.2008 and 16.10.2009 and refund the amount to them with interest on their production of relevant documents evidencing payments and after counter checking the records produced by Saharas.

    7. SEBI (WTM), in the event of finding that the genuineness of the subscribers is doubtful, an opportunity shall be afforded to Saharas to satisfactorily establish the same as being legitimate and valid. It shall be open to the Saharas, in such an eventuality to associate the concerned subscribers to establish their claims. The decision of SEBI (WTM) in this behalf will be final and binding on Saharas as well as the subscribers.

    8. SEBI (WTM) if, after the verification of the details furnished, is unable to find out the whereabouts of all or any of the subscribers, then the amount collected from such subscribers will be appropriated to the Government of India.

    9. We also appoint Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal, a retired Judge of this Court to oversee whether directions issued by this Court are properly and effectively complied with by the SEBI (WTM) from the date of this order. Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal would also oversee the entire steps adopted by SEBI (WTM) and other officials for the effective and proper implementation of the directions issued by this Court. We fix an amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards the monthly remuneration payable to Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal, this will be in addition to travelling, accommodation and other expenses, commensurate with the status of the office held by Justice B.N. Agrawal, which shall be borne by SEBI and recoverable from Saharas. Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal is requested to take up this assignment without affecting his other engagements. We also order that all administrative expenses including the payment to the additional staff and experts, etc. would be borne by Saharas.

    10. We also make it clear that if Saharas fail to comply with these directions and do not effect refund of money as directed, SEBI can take recourse to all legal remedies, including attachment and sale of properties, freezing of bank accounts etc. for realizations of the amounts.

    11. We also direct SEBI(WTM) to submit a status report, duly approved by Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal, as expeditiously as possible, and also permit SEBI (WTM) to seek further directions from this Court, as and when, found necessary.

    7. During the course of hearing, we were told that since the required documents, as per directions contained in the order of the Honble Supreme Court, were not furnished by the appellants to the Board within the stipulated period, the Board has already filed a contempt petition before the Supreme Court. With regard to certain other directions the Board filed interlocutory applications (65 and 66 of 2012) which were disposed of on October 19, 2012 observing that there is no reason to pass any orders in the interlocutory applications since the directions given by the Court in its judgment dated August 31, 2012 are self explanatory. We are told a contempt petition filed by the respondent Board and a review petition filed by the appellants against the order dated August 31, 2012 are already pending before Honble Supreme Court. The interlocutory application has already been disposed of observing that the directions given by the Apex Court are self explanatory. Under these circumstances, we fail to understand how this Tribunal gets the jurisdiction to entertain this appeal when the parties are supposed to take action in accordance with the directions given by the Honble Supreme Court. Admittedly, the appellants have not yet tendered the money to the respondent Board as per directions contained in para 1 of the order, as reproduced above. The cause of action, if any, will arise if the money is tendered by the appellants as per directions of the Supreme Court and the same is not accepted by the Board. The Honble Supreme Court is seized of the matter. The Board has been directed to submit status report, duly approved by Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal who has been requested to oversee the implementation of the directions. We see no reason how this Tribunal gets jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or give any further directions in the matter. We are, therefore, of the view that any further direction or modification in the directions issued by the Supreme Court can be sought for and granted by that Court alone. We, therefore, find the appeal premature as well as non-maintainable. Dismissed. No costs. Sd/- P.K. Malhotra Member & Presiding Officer (Offg.) Sd/- S.S.N. Moorthy Member 29.11.2012 Prepared and compared by:

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Sahara India Real Es... v. Sahara Housing Inves...
    (Nov 29, 2012)