Wednesday 9 January 2013

Supreme Court asks Sahara to pay up; refuses urgent hearing


A bench, headed by CJI Altamas Kabir, on Tuesday told the Sahara group that it would have to pay Rs 10,000 crore, the next tranche of money due to investors, as directed by the top court in its December 5, 2012, order. 

"You have to pay," Justice Kabir said, when senior counsel 
Ram Jethmalani sought urgent hearing of an application seeking to have the deadline extended for submitting to SEBI papers relating to over three crore investors. 
"What is the urgency? If you don't deposit, you don't deposit. We have heard the case and decided," Justice Kabir said, brushing aside Jethmalani's arguments that the Sahara group may end up committing contempt of court unless the court stepped in and extended the deadline for submitting the papers.

Sahara has said that its original payment of Rs 5,620 crore to SEBI was enough to cover all its dues as it had paid some of the money directly to its investors. It has therefore sought a stay on payment of the rest in two tranches of Rs 10,000 crore each by January and February, 2013. The deadline for the first tranche expired on January 7, 2013 and Sahara is apprehensive of coercive action by SEBI unless it gets a court stay on the deadline.

The bench, which originally asked it to pay up Rs 24,000 crore inclusive of interest, has refused to hear its plea to extend the deadline. A bench headed by the CJI had earlier extended the deadline, but Sahara has failed to meet that too. 

"We have sent 128 truckloads of documents. We need more time," Jethmalani told a bench headed by the CJI. The bench said that it would hear the application in due course. That means an average waiting time of a month. 

A review petition, filed by Sahara, is also pending before Justices K S Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar. 

That petition, which challenges the original order asking to refund Rs 24,000 crore, was heard today, but the order is yet to be made available. Sahara had sought review of the figure to be paid up as well as the expunging of adverse remarks against the company in the original ruling.

Source:- http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/

No comments:

Post a Comment