SEBI looks for directions from the court, to instruct Sahara to deposit total RS. 62,602.90 Crores obtained immediately. The Indian Stock Exchange (SEBI) Moves the Supreme Court to the Head of Sahara India, Subrata Roy, and two Sahara companies who are looking for RS immediate payments.
62,602 Crore-money owed by the alleged market regulator by the Sahara according to the 2012 and 2015 High Court. The request asked the court to bring Roy and other directors to become the custody of the payment.
Sahara’s Unpaid Dues: SEBI Seeks Recovery of ₹10,325.62 Crore Amid Supreme Court-Ordered Obligations
The main responsibility, according to the application of Sebi, is Rs. 25,781.32 Crore, where can only recover Rs 15,455.70 Crore from Sahara’s property sales.
The application states that Sahara must still pay the remaining balance of ₹10,325.62 crore. It further highlights that as of September 30, 2020, Sahara’s total net obligation stood at ₹62,602.9 crore. This amount includes a 15% interest rate calculated from August 31, 2012, as directed by the Supreme Court.
The petition asserts that Sahara failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s 2012 order to return the funds raised through the red-herring prospectus. It emphasizes that the company was required to complete this process within three months. By disregarding the court’s directive, the Indian Sahara Company has committed contempt of court.
SEBI requests a hearing on its application to appoint a receiver to take control of all Sahara Group assets. The regulatory body seeks to sell these properties, both in India and abroad, to recover and return the outstanding amounts. SEBI emphasizes the urgent need for judicial intervention to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s directives.
In March 2014, the Supreme Court imprisoned Roy and two other directors for failing to make court-ordered payments. However, in May 2016, the Court granted Roy parole following his mother’s death. Since then, authorities have repeatedly extended his conditional release, prolonging the legal battle.
In his request, Sebi accused that remembering the explicit direction of the APEX court, Sahara deliberately obeyed the instructions and committed to the court, causing uncomfortable market regulators.
SEBI sets specific enforcement cells
The tree also highlights how the SEBI sets specific enforcement cells (seconds) to handle work related to the document verification process and to make payments to qualified investors who have several applications for payment under different payment phases, and questions about refunds.
Obi was only Able to sell property in 5 of the 70 locations due to the deed of land that was considered too high and incomplete delivered by Sahara to Sebi, even after conducting a multiple auctions round.
Sahara transferred the case to the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), claiming Sebi refused to accept their submitted documents. However, SAT dismissed the appeal as premature and legally unsustainable. The tribunal ruled that Sahara’s claim lacked merit and could not proceed further.
Sahara challenged this order before the Supreme Court, which rejected all their suggested payment theories in December 2012. The Court ordered Sahara to pay all amounts along with interest, dismissing their proposed payment methods.
Other Legal Info
- CORPORATE LAW FIRM: Secure the Best Quality Legal Solutions
- How India Is Changing The Way You Think About Law?
- Consumer Law
- Pharma Stock has increased more than 10,000% in 96 trading days
- Expression of views, which are different and different from the government’s opinion: SC
- Pharma Stock has increased more than 10,000% in 96 trading days
- Navigating Employment Law: Legal Guidance for Employers and Employees
- GST LITIGATION: How to find the Expert Taxation Attorneys in Chennai
- Even though there was no medical negligence, the government hospital was told to pay
- Apex Law Office LLP [Appellate Lawyers Office: Best Legal Firm in Chennai 24×7]
In 2015, the court refused to leave when the Sahara approached the Supreme Court with Plea. To free them from depositing money suspected of being redeemed by them. However, give Roy and Sahara a new timeline to deposit the number and ensure compliance.
Sebi argues that although Sahara received a long rope, their obligations increase if the Supreme Court releases its directors. The regulatory board asserts that the 2016 detainee release ruling directly impacts Sahara’s financial responsibilities.
