SC dismisses Sahara's petition over Sebi dispute

Also pulls up company for non-compliance of its order to refund investors' money by Feb 1st week

The Supreme Court today dismissed two applications moved by the Sahara companies in its dispute with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) over issue of bonds and observed that it was ‘unfortunate’ that they have not complied with the court orders.

The Bench, headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, criticised the two companies for going before another Bench with the same prayers as those before him. His Bench had given time to comply with its December 2012 order. However, instead of complying with the terms of the order, the companies moved two more applications. “We would have dismissed these with costs,” the judge observed. But the court only dismissed it, amidst anxious pleas of counsel Ram Jethmalani pressing for more reliefs.

The Chief Justice took a tough stand against the two companies — Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Ltd — and asked the counsel whether they have done anything since the last order. “We gave you time only to make it possible for you to return the money collected from the investors,” the judge said.

Jethmalani described the difficulties in collecting documents from all over the country, especially from the mofussils. The companies had written to Sebi, claiming that they had all the documents and was ready to deliver them. But Sebi was not responding favourably, the counsel said, seeking further reliefs from the court.

The last order of the Chief Justice’s Bench had created some controversy, which was reflected today when the Supreme Court Bar Association President K Krishnamani intervened to submit that the court had not followed the procedural traditions of the apex court. Speaking on behalf of the court bar, Krishnamani said when a Bench passes a judgment, further applications in the same case should be heard by that Bench. But in this case, the companies have moved the Chief Justice’s Bench though the original order was passed in August last year by a Bench headed by Justice K S Radhakrishnan.

“We are pained to see that the breach of the convention has given room for rumours,” senior counsel told the Chief Justice, who was upset by the submission. “What do you know about this case? Do you know one word about it?” the judge asked.

Krishnamani replied that he need not know the details of the case, but he was “pained” to see that the traditions of the bar and the Bench have not been followed.