Supreme Court Discards Sahara’s Appeal for Review of Refund Case
The Supreme Court has rejected Sahara’s petition to review its previous judgment that required Sahara companies to refund approximately ₹25,000 crore to investors. Citing a lack of compelling reasons for reconsideration, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Supreme Court discards Sahara’s appeal
Subsidiary firms, specifically Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Ltd (SHICL) and Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd (SIRECL), faced fines of ₹24,000 crore, as they were found to have amassed investments under questionable circumstances. The Supreme Court noted discrepancies and a lack of clarity in the investor details provided.
Due to suspicions surrounding the investor information, the Supreme Court mandated that the Sahara entities pay the levied fine. Sahara later asserted that repayments to its investors had already been completed.
In December 2012, the Supreme Court granted Sahara additional time to facilitate the repayment. According to the SC’s December directive, Sahara companies were required to make the payment in three installments. Following an initial installment of ₹5,120 crore, the remaining ₹20,000 crore was to be paid in two subsequent installments in January and February.
(Subrata Roy of Sahara- in a press meeting ) Supreme Court refuses to heed Sahara’s plea in January.
The Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, mandated that Sahara firms deposit ₹10,000 crore as the first installment by the first week of January 2013. As per the Supreme Court order, Sahara was obligated to pay the second installment of ₹10,000 crore during the first week of February.
The top court also authorized the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the market regulator, to seize Sahara's assets in the event of non-compliance with the prescribed order.
Upon dismissing Sahara's appeal for review, the Supreme Court affirmed that it had thoroughly examined the appeal and found no substantial grounds for admitting it.
The Supreme Court's order from January 8 indicated that no inconsistencies were found in the views expressed by the judges. It was further stated that the court had rigorously examined and analyzed the records presented, ultimately concluding that there were no valid reasons to consider the appeal.