Sahara Groups Fail Again to Refund; SC Condemns

The Apex Court of India harshly condemned Sahara Groups for their failure. Sahara Groups failed to refund its investors Rs.27000-Crore. Sahara Groups was further ordered to refund the amount within a week by SC.

Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Ltd (SIRECL and SHICL respectively) had been fined Rs.27000-Crore. These groups were given deadline to recompense 3-Crore investors. SC found out that the SC order is so far not accomplished.

Chief Justice Altamas Kabir – headed SC bench asked both groups to state if they could refund the entire amount within a week or not.

Harshly condemning both Sahara Group heads, Chief Justice Kabir declined their plea. He told that the plea did not deserve a hearing. He further stated that the Supreme Court orders are not to be interpreted according to various circumstances.

Senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam’s efforts to justify the Sahara group’s failure remained vain and futile. The SC bench strongly rebutted him. SC bench looked at his efforts as unjustifiable.

However, the SC Bench gave another day to the Groups. SC bench ordered the group to present their statement on the matter. As per the order Sahara Groups will have to convince the SC if they can refund the amount or not.

The national Market regulator Securities Exchange– SEBI- appealed against Sahara Groups. SEBI conveyed to the SC bench that they have already filed a petition against the Groups. It stood for tough action against Sahara. SC bench opposed the SEBI’s demand. It added that the Apex Court has higher concern for the investors and common man.

The Apex Court can easily send officials of both groups to jail. Yet it is not the concern. The bench revealed that they are more concerned about the common investors who had invested in these groups.

Sahara groups’ advocate Mukul Rohatgi’s argument made Chief Justice Kabir lose his cool. He raised his harsh voice while making him sit. He was denied of presenting his argument which, in SC bench’s opinion, was not worth hearing.

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *