Don’t miss the latest developments in business and finance.

Sahara gets more time to repay bond investors

SC orders Sahara to initially deposit Rs 5,120 crore with the Sebi and pay the remainder in two instalments in January and February

Image
BS Reporter New Delhi
Last Updated : Jan 24 2013 | 2:10 AM IST

The Supreme Court today directed the Sahara group companies to refund Rs 24,000 crore to a bond scheme investors by January and February. The scheme was declared illegal by the court on August 31.

The two Sahara firms which raised the fund will hand over a demand draft of Rs 5,120 crore immediately and the rest in two instalments. The first instalment of Rs 10,000 crore shall be paid in the first week of January. The amount will be deposited with SEBI.

The second instalment shall be paid in February, according to the order passed by a three-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir.

According to the August judgment of the court, the deadline for repayment to around three crore depositors expired on November 30. Therefore, the court expressed deep displeasure at the delay in Sahara’s action.

However, today's order was passed amid protests from Sebi and an investor protection group which asserted that they were not fully heard. SEBI strongly opposed today’s order as the main judgment was delivered by another bench and only that bench could modify it. A contempt of court petition was also pending there.  The main judgment was  delivered a bench consisting of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar.  Though this issue was raised on Monday,before the Chief Justice’s bench, it was not accepted and the CJ responded that his bench was passing the order in the best interest of the investors.
 
When senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for SEBI, raised the issue again today and wanted the court to record its objection, the CJ said: "We will record what we feel to record. We cannot record what you say."

Counsel for Universal Investors Association, Vikas Singh, submitted that as  the court had given an assurance that its order was to protect the investors, it was unfair to pass order without hearing it. The bench did not heed the request and dictated the order.

Also Read

First Published: Dec 05 2012 | 12:22 PM IST

Next Story