Securities And Exchange Board Of India v. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited And Others

(2016) 15 SCC 345

Order dated 29-3-2016

(Before Dr T.S. Thakur, C.J. and Anil R. Dave and Dr A.K. Sikri, JJ.)

IAs Nos. 77-79, 89-91, 131-37, 104-106, 83-85, 119-21 of 2015, 138-46 of 2016 in Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 412-13 of 2012 in CAs Nos. 9813 and 9833 of 2011 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 260 of 2013 in CA No. 8643 of 2012

IAs Nos. 153-55 of 2016

1. Issue notice. Mr Pratap Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel may file his objections to these applications within two weeks.

IAs Nos. 158-60 of 2016

2. Mr Venugopal may file his objections to these applications within two weeks. We permit SEBI to receive and encash 357 cheques handed over by Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel today on behalf of Sahara Group as the balance sale consideration for the Sahara properties.

3. Personal appearance of the Director of the applicant company, namely, M/s Divine Infrasolutions Pvt. Ltd. shall stand exempted for future hearings subject to the clearance of the cheques for payment.

IAs Nos. 151-52 of 2016

4. Heard. We see no reason to entertain these applications at this stage. These applications are accordingly dismissed.

IA No. 147 of 2016

5. Issue notice. The learned counsel opposite may file their objections to this application within four weeks. Sahara shall while responding to the application set out the details of the project in which the application for intervention has been filed and of all other similar projects which are either completed or under completion all over the country. The time within which the projects shall be completed and the extent of investment required to complete the same shall also be indicated on an approximate basis.

IAs Nos. 135-37 of 2015

6. A reply has been filed on behalf of M/s Sai Rydam Realtors Pvt. Ltd., the purchasers of 270.77 acres of land situated at Vasai, Bombay. Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel may file a rejoinder-affidavit to the reply-affidavit within four weeks.

7. We are prima facie of the view that the purchasers have despite an undertaking given to this Court failed to deposit the balance amount of Rs 981.50 crores without any lawful justification. We, therefore, see no reason why a notice should not be issued to the Managing Director and the Directors of the said company to show cause why proceedings for contempt of this Court should not be initiated against them. Notice shall be returnable within four weeks. The noticees viz. Shri Devendra Rajnikant Ladhani, Director, Shri Anil Ramchandra Gupta, Director and Shri Mukesh Shivdas Sonar, Director who shall remain present in person before the Court on the next date of hearing.

IAs Nos. 119-21 of 2016

8. The learned counsel for the parties submit that these applications have been rendered infructuous and may therefore be dismissed. We order accordingly.

IAs Nos. 144-46 of 2016

9. List these applications along with IAs Nos. 104-06 of 2015 filed by SEBI. Objections, if any, be filed by the learned counsel opposite in the meantime.

IAs Nos. 138-40 of 2016

10. Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel submits on instructions that Saharas have already handed over title deeds in respect of 86 properties owned by the Sahara Group worth more than Rs 20,000 crores. These properties according to Mr Kapil Sibal are encumbered. Mr Kapil Sibal submits that, according to his instructions, another list of properties has also been furnished to SEBI comprising properties worth an additional Rs 20,000 crores. Mr Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel seeks time to verify whether a second list of properties has been given.

11. Mr Kapil Sibal further submits that the properties mentioned in the two lists could be sold by SEBI for realising the required amount to be deposited as a condition for release of the contemnors from jail.

12. Mr Datar, in reply, submits that SEBI will have no objection to do so if directed by this Court. SEBI can initiate the process of selling the properties covered by the lists mentioned above with or without the assistance of an expert agency engaged for that purpose under the supervision of Hon'ble Mr Justice B.N. Agrawal, named by this Court to supervise the refund of the amounts by the Saharas. Mr Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Sahara has no objection in case SEBI is allowed to do the needful.

13. We, accordingly, direct that SEBI shall be free to devise a suitable mechanism for sale of properties, the title deeds whereof have already been deposited with it by Saharas in consultation and under the supervision of Justice B.N. Agrawal, former Judge of this Court. SEBI shall keep Saharas duly informed about the steps taken by it in which event Sahara shall be free to provide such inputs as may be considered necessary so that the properties fetch a fair price towards sale consideration. We make it clear that SEBI shall not sell any property owned by Saharas for a price less than 90% of the circle rates for the area in question without the permission of this Court.

IAs Nos. 156-57 of 2016

14. These applications have been filed by SEBI for permitting the Saharas to make refund to those OFCD holders of Saharas who have made multiple deposits in cash irrespective of the amount invested by such investors. The prayer is not opposed by Saharas. We, accordingly, allow these applications and permit SEBI to refund the amount to OFCD holders who have made multiple deposit in cash irrespective of the amount deposited by the holders.

15. List again along with IAs Nos. 104-06 of 2015 filed by SEBI and all other pending applications for hearing on 27-4-2016 at 2.00 p.m.

(2016) 15 SCC 347 (1)

Order dated 25-4-2016

(Before Dr T.S. Thakur, C.J. and R. Banumathi and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)

IA No. … of 2016 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 412 of 2012 in CA No. 9813 of 2011

16. As and when the Bench hearing Contempt Petition No. 412 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 9813 of 2011 is constituted, list IAs Nos. … of 2016 along with the said petition.

(2016) 15 SCC 347 (2)

Order dated 27-4-2016

(Before Dr T.S. Thakur, C.J. and Anil R. Dave and Dr A.K. Sikri, JJ.)

IAs Nos. 77-79, 89-91, 104-106, 83-85, 138-47, 153-55, 158-79 of 2016, 131-37 of 2015 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 412-13 of 2012 in CA No. 9813 and 9833 of 2011 and CP (C) No. 260 of 2013 in CA No. 8643 of 2012

IAs Nos. 164-65 of 2016

17. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has instructions to withdraw these applications as the claims made by the applicants stand fully satisfied. IAs Nos. 164-65 of 2016 are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

IA No. 166 of 2016

18. Heard. By our order dated 21-11-2013 (2014) 5 SCC 429, we had directed that Sahara Group of Companies shall not part with any movable and immovable properties until further orders from this Court. That order has remained in force ever since. In the present application, the applicant seeks a clarification to the effect that the order aforementioned does not prevent the applicants from executing/enforcing the judgment dated 11-8-2015 passed by Ncdrc against Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. in Sahara Grace Consumers Grievance Assn. v. Sahara India Commercial Co. Ltd. 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 3553 We see no reason to decline that prayer. We accordingly clarify that our order dated 21-11-2013 passed in SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. (2014) 5 SCC 429 shall not prevent the applicant from executing the judgment dated 11-8-2015 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 3553 of Ncdrc passed against Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. in Consumer Complaint No. 47 of 2009 in accordance with law.

IA No. 167 of 2016

19. Heard. On the analogy of the order passed in IA No. 166 of 2016 we clarify that our order dated 21-11-2013 passed in SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. (2014) 5 SCC 429 shall not prevent the applicants from executing the judgment dated 7-11-2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Nagpur passed against Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. in Consumer Complaint No. CC/13/17 in accordance with law.

IA No. 147 of 2016

20. In this application seeking intervention by the applicants, the applicant's precise grievance appears to be that Complaint Case No. CC/13/15 filed by him before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench, Nagpur is not being proceeded with on account of our order dated 21-11-2013 in SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. (2014) 5 SCC 429 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the intervenor that intervenor-applicant shall be satisfied in case it is clarified that the order passed by this Court on 21-11-2013 (2014) 5 SCC 429, whereby this Court restrained the Sahara Group of Companies from alienating any property movable or otherwise, does not prevent the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission concerned from proceeding with contempt case filed by the applicants and passing appropriate orders on the same. We see no reason to decline that prayer. We make it clear that our dated 21-11-2013 (2014) 5 SCC 429 shall not prevent the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission concerned from proceeding with and passing orders in accordance with law in pending Complaint Case No. CC/13/15 filed by the applicant.

21. IA No. 147 of 2016 is accordingly disposed of with the said direction.

IAs Nos. 153-55 of 2016

22. Mr Biswajit Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submits that he does not propose to press these applications for the present. The applications are dismissed as not pressed.

IA No. 131 of 2016

23. Heard. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the genuineness of the agreement to sell and purchase allegedly entered into between Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. on the one hand and the applicant on the other and the payments allegedly made towards sale consideration of the property agreed to be sold and purchased by the parties could be left to be verified by Mr Justice B.N. Agrawal before whom the parties agree to present their respective versions supported by documents. We request Justice Agrawal to look into the matter and verify whether alleged transaction has been entered into by the parties and whether any payment pursuant to the said transactions have been paid and received by the purchaser and the seller, if so, whether said payments are made before the issue of the order of restraint dated 21-11-2013 (2014) 5 SCC 429 passed by us. We hope and trust that Justice Agrawal shall submit a status report on the subject expeditiously but not later than three months from the date a copy of this order is received by him.

24. Post after the needful is done.

IAs Nos. 174-76 of 2016

25. By our order dated 29-3-2016, we had issued several directions including a direction to SEBI to devise a suitable mechanism for sale of properties, the title deeds whereof have already been deposited with it by Saharas. The mechanism for such sale was to be finalised in consultation with and under the supervision of Justice B.N. Agrawal, former Judge of this Court. Mr Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel for SEBI has pursuant to the said directions filed 15th Status Report of SEBI in which it is inter alia pointed out that SEBI has in consultation with Justice Agrawal engaged the services of HDFC Realty (a subsidiary of Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.) and SBI Capital Markets Ltd. (Sbicap), a subsidiary of State Bank of India for auctioning of the properties. The report sets out the terms and conditions on which the aforementioned two agencies have agreed to undertake the process of sale and transfer of properties in question. Mr Arvind P. Datar submits that the two agencies engaged by SEBI have been given four months' time to complete the process of effecting the sales. He submits that the first phase of the process of sale is to commence in the immediate future and that given two weeks' time, he should be able to file a further status report indicating the progress made in that direction. He further states that the title deeds deposited by Saharas with SEBI need to be verified, the defects, if any, rectified with the help of the Sahara companies concerned. Be that as it may, we expect the agencies engaged by SEBI to take immediate steps for sale of the properties in question after due and proper verification and after completing all other safeguards necessary for ensuring that the properties are sold for the optimum price they can fetch.

26. Mr Datar points out that Saharas have not so far submitted a complete list of all the properties owned by them. He urged that on record are found only two lists, one comprising properties at Versova and Vasai and the other enumerating 71 different items of properties which include Vasai for a second time. The first list estimates the market value of Versova and Vasai at Rs 20,443.72 crores. The second list comprising 71 items includes Vasai and estimates the value of the property at Rs 20,172.50 crores. It is submitted by Mr Datar that a large number of properties are owned by Sahara Group of Companies over and above the two lists mentioned above, details whereof have not been shared by the Saharas so far with this Court. He urged that Saharas could be directed to give a complete list of all the properties owned by them with probable value of each such property.

27. Dr Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contemnors on the other hand submits that the two lists referred to by Mr Arvind Datar are not exhaustive. He submitted that he will take instructions and produce a complete list of all the properties owned by Saharas over and above those mentioned in the list that are already filed before this Court.

28. Having said that Dr Dhavan submitted that given the fact that the contemnors have spent more than two years in jail and the fact that SEBI has now been authorised to sell the properties mentioned in the two lists except Ambey Valley, this Court could consider granting parole to the contemnors or in the alternative shifting him out of the jail to be held under house-arrest so that the contemnors could also assist in the process of sale of the properties with or without the intervention of SEBI to raise the money required to be deposited. He further submitted that if SEBI could furnish a copy of the title deeds consisting of Versova properties of Saharas, the latter may make an attempt to find purchasers for the said property with a view to raising funds for deposit with SEBI. Mr Datar had no objection to a copy of title deed in question being made available to Saharas.

29. In the circumstances, therefore, we adjourn these matters till 11-5-2016. Mr Datar may file an interim report as to the progress made in the direction of sale of the properties by the agencies. In the meantime Saharas shall file a list of the remaining properties owned by them.

30. Dr Dhavan at this stage submits that a certain amount of money representing returns on the investment in gold and commodities (Spot Exchange) is lying to the credit of Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd. with the National Spot Exchange. It is submitted that Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd. appears to have approached the spot exchange for payment which request was opposed by SEBI in view of the restraint order issued by this Court. He submits that this Court could permit SEBI to collect the amount payable to Saharas for adjustment against the outstanding dues. Mr Datar seeks time to look into the matter and do the needful. We make it clear that any amount or commodity including gold which is lying with the Spot Exchange in the account of any one of the Sahara companies shall be made over to SEBI for deposit in SEBI Sahara Account. Earlier orders passed by us shall not be taken as an impediment for any such disbursement/payment to SEBI in terms of this order.

IAs Nos. 135-37 of 2015

31. M/s Devendra Rajnikant Ladhani, Anil Ramchandra Gupta, Mukesh Shivdas Sonar, Directors of the Company who were directed to remain present in person to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them are present in the Court. Mr Paras Kuhad, learned Senior Counsel has already submitted his reply in this regard.

32. List the matter again on 11-5-2016. The Directors shall remain present in person on that date.

(2016) 15 SCC 351

Order dated 6-5-2016

(Before Dr T.S. Thakur, C.J. and Anil R. Dave and Dr A.K. Sikri, JJ.)

IAs Nos. 180-182 in Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 412-13 of 2012 in CAs Nos. 9813 and 9833 of 2011 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 260 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 8643 of 2012

33. These applications have been filed by Mr Subrata Roy Sahara and Mr Ashok Roy Choudhary presently lodged in Tihar Jail seeking provisional/temporary release of the applicants from custody for a period of three weeks on such terms and conditions as may be stipulated by this Court to enable them to perform the funeral and other rites of late Smt Chhabi Roy, mother of Mr Subrata Roy Sahara.

34. Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants, submits that Smt Chhabi Roy, mother of the applicant Subrata Roy Sahara aged about 95 years old and ailing for some time, has passed away today at about 1.30 a.m. He submits that the applicants are required to perform the last rites of the deceased and other ceremonies connected therewith. He submits that the applicants could be permitted to do so on such terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper.

35. Mr Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for SEBI fairly concedes that in the light of the bereavement in the family, the applicants' prayer for temporary release from jail could be considered on suitable terms and conditions to be stipulated by this Court.

36. In the circumstances, therefore, and having regard to the submissions made at the Bar, we direct that the applicants, Mr Subrata Roy Sahara and Ashok Roy Choudhary, presently lodged in Tihar Jail in Delhi shall be released from the jail temporarily for a period of four weeks to enable them to visit Lucknow for performing the last rites of late Smt Chabbi Roy and to visit Haridwar and Ganga Sagar for such rites and ceremonies. The release of the applicants from Tihar Jail shall, however, be subject to the following conditions:

36.1. The applicants shall be under protective custody and shall be escorted during their period outside the jail by a team of police officials to be deputed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, headed by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police.

36.2. The police officials escorting the applicants during the period they are outside the jail shall be in plain clothes. The applicants shall not be handcuffed at any point of time.

36.3. The police officials escorting the applicants shall report their presence to the jurisdictional police station concerned where the applicants are taken in which event the jurisdictional police station concerned shall at all times provide all such help and support to the escort team as may be necessary.

36.4. Upon expiry of the period of four weeks from today, the escort team shall lodge the applicants back into Tihar Jail. The applicants shall offer no resistance to that course and shall obey the escort team without demur.

36.5. The costs including travel, salary and other emoluments of the team deputed to escort the applicants shall be borne by the applicants Saharas.

36.6. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi, shall be free to raise a suitable bill to SEBI to be paid out of SEBI Sahara Refund Account. Mr Sibal assures the Court that the applicants shall at no point of time make any attempt to either escape from the protective custody of the escort team or otherwise leave the country especially when their passports are already deposited with the competent authority.

37. The Registry shall forthwith convey this order to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, as also to the Superintendent of Tihar Jail for compliance.

(2016) 15 SCC 352

Order dated 11-5-2016

(Before Dr T.S. Thakur, C.J. and Anil R. Dave and Dr A.K. Sikri, JJ.)

IAs Nos. 77-79, 89-91, 104-106, 83-85, 138-46, 158-63, 168-79 of 2016, 132-37 of 2015 in Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 412-13 of 2012 in CAs Nos. 9813 and 9833 of 2011 and CP (C) No. 260 of 2013 in CA No. 8643 of 2012

38. By our order dated 6-5-2016 passed in SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. we had directed release of Subrata Roy Sahara and Ashok Roy Choudhary from Tihar Jail for a period of four weeks to be held in protective custody by a team of police officials deputed by the Commissioner of Police. That order has been complied with. Both Subrata Roy Sahara and Ashok Roy Choudhary are currently in Lucknow in connection with the death ceremonies of late Smt Chhabi Roy, mother of Shri Subrata Roy Sahara.

39. When the matter came up today, M/s Subrata Roy Sahara and Ashok Roy Choudhary strenuously argued that given an opportunity, the aforementioned two contemnors would deposit a minimum amount of Rs 200 crores (Rupees two hundred crores only) with SEBI by 11-7-2016 to prove their bona fides.

40. Mr Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for SEBI, submits that if the applicants file individual undertakings to the effect that they shall deposit a sum of Rs 200 crores by 11-7-2016, the arrangement made by us in terms of our order dated 6-5-2016 could be extended till 11-7-2016. It is submitted that from the list of properties filed today and situate within and outside the country, it appears that the Saharas are possessed of sufficiently large assets to enable them to raise for deposit with SEBI the requisite amount in terms of the earlier directions of this Court. Their omission to do so, however, suggests that they have no intentions of depositing the amount unless forced to do so. Be that as it may, so long as the Saharas are ready to prove their bona fides by deposit of at least Rs 200 crores, which in comparison to the total amount liable to be deposited is just about a fraction, they could be permitted to do so by extending the existing arrangement.

41. Mr Shekhar Naphade, learned Amicus, submits that the reluctance of Saharas to sell Ambey Valley properties which are valuable and sufficient by themselves to fetch the requisite funds raises serious doubts about their bona fides.

42. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar, we are inclined to give one more chance to the applicants, namely, Subrata Roy Sahara and Ashok Roy Choudhary to prove their bona fides depositing Rs 200 crores by 11-7-2016. We, accordingly, direct that the arrangement made in terms of our order dated 6-5-2016 shall continue till 11-7-2016 subject to the following conditions:

42.1. Subrata Roy Sahara and Ashok Roy Choudhary file individual undertakings in this Court within one week from today to the effect that they shall deposit with SEBI a sum of Rs 200 crores by 11-7-2016. In case they fail to do so, the police escort team shall take them back to Tihar Jail for being lodged there.

42.2. The process of sale of properties, title deeds whereof stand deposited with SEBI, shall continue unaffected and shall have no co-relation with the obligation of the two applicants mentioned above to deposit Rs 200 crores by 11-7-2016.

43. The applicants shall be free to visit, under the care and protection of the escort team, any place within the country provided they keep the Commissioner of Police, Delhi informed about their movements in advance.

44. List of properties filed by Mr Kapil Sibal is taken on record and shall be kept in a sealed cover by the Registry. Post on 11-7-2016 at 2 p.m.

IAs Nos. 135-37 of 2015

45. Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.

(2016) 15 SCC 354

Order dated 11-7-2016

(Before Dr T.S. Thakur, C.J. and Anil R. Dave and Dr A.K. Sikri, JJ.)

IAs Nos. 77-79, 89-91, 104-106, 83-85, 138-46, 158-63, 168-79 of 2016, 132-34 of 2015 in Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 412-13 of 2012 in CAs Nos. 9813 and 9833 of 2011 and CP (C) No. 260 of 2013 in CA No. 8643 of 2012

46. By our order dated 11-5-2016, we had extended the interim arrangement made by/under our order dated 6-5-2016 till 11-7-2016 subject to the contemnors Subrata Roy Sahara and Ashok Roy Choudhary depositing an additional sum of Rs two hundred crores by 11-7-2016. In the event of their failure to do so, the police escort team, in whose protective custody they have been placed, was directed to take them back to Tihar Jail for being lodged there. Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contemnors has today handed over to Mr Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for SEBI six different bank drafts-five drawn on Union Bank of India and one on Punjab National Bank for a total sum of Rs two hundred crores in compliance with the direction mentioned above. Mr Sibal submits that given time till 3-8-2016, the contemnors would deposit a further sum of Rs three hundred crores for continuance of the interim arrangement made in terms of our orders dated 6-5-2016 and 11-5-2016.

47. Mr Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for SEBI and Mr Shekhar Naphade, learned Amicus Curiae have no serious objection to the time prayed for being granted on the condition that the Saharas shall during the intervening period deposit a further sum of Rs three hundred crores with SEBI in SEBI Sahara account. In that view, therefore, we continue the arrangement made in terms of the orders mentioned above till 3-8-2016 subject to the deposit of an additional amount of Rs three hundred crores by 3-8-2016. Needless to say, that in case the needful is not done within the time allowed, the two contemnors mentioned above shall be sent back to custody in Tihar Jail as already directed.

48. Mr Sibal next submitted that certain directions have been issued by this Court earlier enabling SEBI to collect certain amount due to Saharas in National Spot Exchange Limited. He submits that the amount payable by Saharas towards mutual funds and shares have not so far been recovered by SEBI despite the directions of this Court. Mr Datar, however, submits that SEBI has taken steps in that direction and a status report regarding the progress made shall be filed by the next date of hearing. We make it clear that the direction for deposit of Rs three hundred crores by Saharas by 3-8-2016 shall remain independent of the collection which SEBI may make pursuant to the directions already issued.

49. Mr Sibal then argued that although this Court has permitted the Saharas to sell 19 different items of properties apart from three off-shore hotels and also to mortgage Ambey Valley to raise funds in terms of the directions of this Court, yet not much has been achieved in that direction on account of the conditions stipulated by this Court for such sale. He urged that this Court could in modification of the conditions stipulated earlier permit Saharas to sell the aforementioned properties and all other properties owned by Saharas on the same terms and conditions as were prescribed while committing SEBI to sell the property. It was submitted that SEBI has been permitted by this Court to sell properties identified for such sale at a price not less than 90% of the circle value of the properties in terms of our order dated 29-3-2016.

50. M/s Arvind Datar and Shekhar Naphade have no objection to such permission being granted having regard to the fact that the process of sale of the properties even through SEBI has not yielded any result. In the circumstances, we modify our order issued earlier and permit Saharas to sell the properties owned by them subject to the condition that such sales are not for a price less than 90% of the circle rates stipulated for the area in which the properties are situate. Needless to say, that the sale price so recovered by Saharas shall be deposited in entirety less expenses, TDS and all other applicable taxes in SEBI Sahara account.

51. At this stage Mr Ratnakar Dash, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant in IAs Nos. 190-91 of 2016 points out that one of the properties which the Saharas owns is situate at Coimbatore and has been developed in the name and style of Sahara City Homes. He submits that the applicants have purchased flats in the said developed area which spreads over a total extent of 12.28 acres out of a total area of 112.14 acres owned by Saharas. He submits that the permission granted by this Court should not jeopardise the interest of the applicants in the said developed colony. We accordingly make it clear that this permission shall not authorise the sale of 12.28 acres of land developed in the name and style of Sahara City Homes at Coimbatore. We however direct that the Saharas shall keep SEBI informed about the transactions entered into by them and the terms on which the same have been made.

52. Mr Sibal submits that a sum of Rs 24 million pounds equivalent to Rs two hundred crores approximately is lying in Saharas account in a London Bank which the Saharas wish to transfer to SEBI in discharge of their liability. He submits that the Saharas could be allowed to make the said transfer.

53. Mr Datar in reply submits that any amount transferred by Saharas can be received by SEBI for adjustment towards their liability. In the circumstances, therefore, we permit the Saharas to transfer the amount mentioned above to SEBI Sahara account.

54. Mr Sibal at this stage submits that the third contemnor Mr Ravi Shankar Dubey could also be let off on the same terms and conditions as stipulated for the release of other two contemnors. The learned counsel for the opposite parties do not oppose that prayer and submit that in case the conditions stipulated by this Court regarding deposit of the amount are not complied with, all the three contemnors shall be liable to be sent back to jail. We make it clear that the release of Mr Dubey from jail will also be subject to the very same conditions as stipulated in regard to other two contemnors.

55. Mr Paras Kuhad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Directors in Sai Rydam Realtors Private Limited, contemnors in IAs Nos. 135-37 of 2015 submits that the contemnors, namely, M/s Devendra Rajnikant Ladhani, Anil Ramchandra Gupta and Mukesh Shivdaas Sonar have filed an undertaking unconditionally undertaking to deposit the balance amount of Rs 982.80 crores in two equal instalments. The first instalment of Rs 491.40 crores shall be deposited by 30-11-2016 whereas the second instalment shall be deposited on or before 15-3-2017. He submits that the undertaking furnished by the contemnors could be accepted and time prayed for making the deposit granted to them. We see no reason to decline that prayer. We accordingly accept the undertaking given by the contemnors and direct that the proceedings initiated by this Court in terms of our order dated 29-3-2016 shall stand dropped for the present, subject to the contemnors mentioned above complying with the undertaking filed by them today. IAs Nos. 135-37 of 2015 which were reserved for orders shall accordingly stand disposed of. The personal presence of the Directors of the Company is dispensed with.

56. Keeping in view the difficulties and impediments that have been faced for effecting the recovery of the amount due from Saharas, we proposed to hear the applications for appointment of Receiver moved by SEBI but Mr Sibal sought time till 3-8-2016 to take instructions and argue the matter. We therefore direct that IAs Nos. 104-06 of 2016 shall be listed for hearing on 3-8-2016 along with IAs Nos. 83-85 of 2015.

IAs Nos. 161-63 of 2016

57. SEBI has sought permission to make refunds to such of the bondholders as have produced original bonds before SEBI for refund. Mr Sibal, learned counsel submits that so long as the original bonds are verified, and the recipient of the money are duly identified and the payment of amount is made by account-payee cheque to them, there should be no difficulty in disbursing the bond amounts. We accordingly allow IAs Nos. 161-63 of 2016 and permit SEBI to disburse the amount covered by the bonds provided before it after verification and by way of cheques.

(2016) 15 SCC 357

Order dated 3-8-2016

(Before Dr T.S. Thakur, C.J. and Anil R. Dave and Dr A.K. Sikri, JJ.)

IAs Nos. 83-85, 180-82 of 2015, 104-106, 194-95 of 2016 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 412 of 2012 in CA No. 9813 of 2011 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 413 of 2012 in CA No. 9833 of 2011 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 260 of 2013 in CA No. 8643 of 2012

58. Mr Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for SEBI today submits that SEBI has received a further sum of Rs three hundred crores and sixty-eight lakhs (Rs 300.68 crores) from Saharas pursuant to the previous orders of this Court. He further states that SEBI has through the agency engaged by it already sold eight properties for a total sum of Rs one hundred ninety-five crores and seven lakhs (Rs 195.07 crores). He submits that a second round of auction for the remaining properties can be conducted if so directed by this Court.

59. Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contemnors on the other hand submits that the properties are being sold for a price less than the market value and that some of the properties now being offered for sale could be sold at a minimum of 110% of the prescribed circle rate. He submits that he is ready to intimate to SEBI particulars of such of the properties as can be sold at the said rate and in regard to which the Saharas have a firm offer from a willing purchaser. He submits that any such intimation ought to result in that particular item of property being taken off the e-platform. Mr Datar has no difficulty with that proposal being accepted subject to the condition that the intimation is made within ten days from today and the firm offer referred to therein is supported by deposit with Saharas of 10% of the sale price offered for the property.

60. In that view, therefore, we allow SEBI to undertake the second round of auction on e-platform, if necessary, after excluding the properties about which the Saharas may send an intimation to SEBI within ten days from today. It is made clear that such an intimation shall be honoured by Saharas only in case the intimation contains a specific statement to the effect that the prospective purchaser of the properties in question has deposited with Saharas at least 10% of the purchase price of the property sought to be sold to him.

61. Mr Sibal has today filed an affidavit sworn by Subrata Roy Sahara inter alia stating that the Saharas have negotiated sale of four properties situate at different locations for a total sale consideration of Rs two hundred eighty-one crores apart from six other properties which are proposed to be sold by Saharas for a sum of Rs one hundred eighty crores. The affidavit further states that Saharas have received token amount towards advance in regard to the said sales. In the affidavit, the deponent undertakes to deposit a minimum of Rs two hundred crores by the 1st week of September, 2016. Mr Sibal submits that the interim arrangement made by this Court in terms of our previous orders could continue till the next date of hearing subject to deposit of rupees two hundred crores during the intervening period.

62. The Saharas claim to have negotiated sale for a total value of Rs four hundred sixty-one crores. We see no reason why the Saharas should not finalise the transactions before the next date of hearing and deposit the entire sale consideration with SEBI. Mr Sibal however submits that instead of this Court fixing a higher amount for deposit, the existing arrangement could continue subject to deposit of a sum of Rs two hundred crores only as proposed in the affidavit.

63. We are of the view that deposit of a sum of Rs three hundred crores should suffice. We accordingly extend the interim arrangement made in terms of our previous order till 16-9-2016 subject to the condition that the Saharas deposit during the intervening period a minimum sum of Rs three hundred crores in SEBI Sahara account.

64. Saharas shall also be entitled to sell movable properties owned by them subject to the condition that the entire sale consideration received by them is deposited in SEBI Sahara account and the list of the properties so sold and the consideration received against the same is filed in this Court.

65. Post on Friday i.e. 16-9-2016 at 2.00 p.m.

(2016) 15 SCC 358

Order dated 16-9-2016

(Before Dr T.S. Thakur, C.J. and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.)

IAs Nos. 83-85 of 2015, 104-106, 180-82, 194-95 and 205-207 of 2016 in Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 412 and 413 of 2012 in CAs Nos. 9813 and 9833 of 2011 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 260 of 2013 in CA No. 8643 of 2012

66. Taken on Board.

67. Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contemnors/Saharas, points out that SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. was directed to be listed for further orders today i.e. Friday, 16-9-2016 at 2.00 p.m. before a Bench comprising the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr Justice A.K. Sikri. The matter has, however, not appeared on Board on account of the non-availability of Hon'ble Dave, J. He further submits that since the interim arrangement made by this Court in terms of order dated 6-5-2016 and extended from time to time expires today and in case same is not extended further, the contemnors/Saharas shall have to surrender back to custody. He submits that this Court may direct extension of the interim arrangement till the next date of hearing since the contemnors/Saharas have already deposited Rs 300 crores (Rupees three hundred crores) in terms of the previous order passed by this Court and thereby complied with the direction of this Court.

68. Mr Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for SEBI, does not dispute this position.

69. In the circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the regular Bench hearing the matter is not available on account of non-availability of Hon'ble Dave, J., we direct that the interim arrangement already made by this Court shall continue till Friday, 23-9-2016. Post on Friday, 23-9-2016 at 2:00 p.m.

(2016) 15 SCC 359

Order dated 23-9-2016

(Before Dr T.S. Thakur, C.J. and Anil R. Dave and Dr A.K. Sikri, JJ.)

IAs Nos. 83-85, 104-106 and 131 of 2015, 180-182, 194-95, 205-207, 209-14 of 2016 in Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 412 and 413 of 2012 in CAs Nos. 9813 and 9833 of 2011 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 260 of 2013 in CA No. 8643 of 2012 with IA No. 208 of 2016 in Contempt Petition No. 412 of 2012 in CA No. 9813 of 2011 and IAs Nos. 218-220 of 2016 in Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 412, 413 of 2012 and 260 of 2013 in CAs Nos. 9813, 9833 and 8643 of 2011

70. At the request of the learned counsel for the contemnors, post again on Monday i.e. 3-10-2016 at 2 p.m. In the meantime, the interim arrangement made by this Court shall stand terminated. The contemnors are given one week's time to surrender back to custody.

Court Masters