Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. Uoi &amp; Ors
Court in, Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case (supra), the relevant observations wherefrom, have already been extracted hereinabove. 142. Last of all, we shall endavour to deal with the submission advanced by Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel, to the effect that the instant petition was maintainable in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court, under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India. The above provisions are being extracted hereunder;- “129. Supreme Court to be a court of record - The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc. - (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.”Relying on the above provisions, learned Senior Counsel asserted, that “maintainability exists, because we can all make mistakes, and the mistakes that we make, need to be corrected”. The submission of the learned counsel in this behalf was, that in the above view of the matter, jurisdiction could truly be traced, to Articles 129 and 142 for correcting mistakes. It was the submission of the learned counsel, that this Court being a Court of record, had unlimited jurisdiction to correct all mistakes committed by it. Referring to Article 142 of the Constitution of India it was submitted, that it was the pious obligation of Court to do complete justice, and accordingly, whenever injustice was traceable, it was imperative for this Court to rectify the same. On the subject under reference, learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case (supra) and invited our pointed attention to following observations recorded therein:-“23. These contentions pose the question, whether an order passed by this Court can be corrected under its inherent powers after dismissal of the review petition on the ground that it was passed either without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice or due to unfair procedure giving scope for bias which resulted in abuse of the process of the Court or miscarriage of justice to an aggrieved person.xxx xxx xxx49. The upshot of the discussion in our view is that this Court, to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice, may re-consider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power.50. The next step is to specify the requirements to entertain such a curative petition under the inherent power of this Court so that floodgates are not opened for filing a second review petition as a matter of course in the guise of a curative petition under inherent power. It is common ground that except when very strong reasons exist, the Court should not entertain an application seeking reconsideration of an order of this Court which has become final on dismissal of a review petition. It is neither advisable nor possible to enumerate all the grounds on which such a petition may be entertained.”(emphasis is ours) 143. It is not possible for us to accept the contention advanced at the hands of the learned Senior Counsel. By placing reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case (supra), learned counsel must be deemed to have impliedly conceded the issue, against himself. In Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case (supra), this Court examined the remedies available to an individual. In the above judgment, this Court examined the ambit and scope of Article 137 of the Constitution of India, whereunder, a review petition could be filed for the correction of an error apparent on the face of the record. In the judgment relied upon, this Court also expressed the view, that a curative petition could be filed for corrections of such like errors, after a review petition had been dismissed. It is relevant to mention, that in furtherance of the directions issued by this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case (supra), this Court has framed rules, for entertaining curative petitions. Such curative petitions, when entertained, are placed before a five-Judge Bench including the senior most three Judges of this Court. Placing reliance on Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case (supra) evidences, that the petitioner was aware of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 137 of the Constitution of India for filing a review petition, as also, the permissibility of filing a curative petition, after the concerned party had not succeeded, in the review petition. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not chosen either of the above jurisdictions. The instant petition has been styled as a criminal writ petition. The instant petition is not maintainable as no fresh petition is shown to be maintainable, under the provisions (Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India), relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel. Moreover, our deliberations on the merits of the controversy further reveals, that there is neither any jurisdictional error, nor any error in law has been shown to be made out, from the impugned order dated 4.3.2014.144. For all the reasons recorded hereinabove we are of the view, that the instant petition is not maintainable and the same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. XI. Conclusions
1[ds]. We are of the view, thata genuine plea of bias alone, could have caused us to withdraw from the matter, and require it to be heard by some other Bench. Detailed submissions on the allegations constituting bias, were addressed well after proceedings had gone on for a few weeks, the same have been dealt with separately (under heading VIII,the impugned order dated 4.3.2014, is vitiated on account ofBased on the submissions advanced by learned counsel, we could not persuade ourselves in accepting the prayer for recusal.10. We have recorded the above narration, lest we are accused of not correctly depicting the submissions, as they were canvassed before us. In our understanding, the oath of our office, required us to go ahead with the hearing. And not to be overawed by such submissions. In our view, not hearing the matter, would constitute an act in breach of our oath of office, which mandates us to perform the duties of our office, to the best of our ability, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. This is certainly not the first time, when solicitation for solicitation for recusal has been sought by learned counsel. Such a recorded peremptory prayer, was made by Mr. R.K. Anand, an eminent Senior Advocate, before the High Court of Delhi, seeking the recusal of Mr. Justice Manmohan Sarin from hearing his personal case.One of the reasons for retaining the instant petition for hearing with ourselves was, that we had heard eminent Senior Counsel engaged by the two companies exclusively for over three weeks during the summer vacation of 2012. We had been taken through thousands of pages of pleadings. We had the occasion to watch the demeanour and defences adopted by the two companies and the contemnors from time to time, from close quarters. Writing the judgment, had occupied the entire remaining period of the summer vacation of 2012, as also, about two months of further time. The judgment dated 31.8.2012 runs into 269 printed pages. Both of us had rendered separate judgments, concurring with one another, on each aspect of the matter. During the course of writing the judgment, we had the occasion to minutely examine numerous communications, exchanged between the rival parties. That too had resulted in a different kind of understanding, about the controversy. For any other Bench to understand the nuances of the controversy determined through our order dated 31.8.2012, would require prolonged hearing of the matter. Months of time, just in the same manner as we had taken while passing the order dated 31.8.2012, would have to be spent again. Possibly the submissions made by the learned counsel seeking our recusal, was consciously aimed at the above objective. Was this the reason for the theatrics, of some of the learned Senior Counsel? Difficult to say for sure. But deep within,we all understand? It was also for the sake of saving precious time of this Court, that we decided to bear the brunt and the rhetoric, of some of the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner. We are therefore satisfied, that it would not be better, for another Bench to hear this case.Even though responses to the contempt petitions referred to above, had been filed, and we were hearing learned counsel representing the contemnors, on the subject of contempt, we were also trying to cajole the two companies, into an understanding that they were obliged to comply with the orders dated 31.8.2012 and 5.12.2012. In our view, compliance of the above orders would reduce the seriousness of the issue. The effort on our part was always to avoid hardship, to any of the concerned parties. But in our above effort, we could not compromise, the interest of the investors. As already noticed, in the discussion recorded under the preceding heading, the two companies never supplied any authentic details of their investors. Nor the details of the moneys collected. Whatever the two companies asserted, had to be accepted on its face value, to proceed further. When learned counsel for the petitioner, made a proposal to secure the amount payable to the investors of the two companies, we were not averse to the proposal. We wished to explore some intermediary means to secure compliance. That would have deferred adoption of harsher measures. With the above object in mind, we accepted the proposal of the learned counsel for the petitioner (and the other contemnors), to furnish a list of unencumbered immovable properties, which would secure the liability of the two companies (for compliance of the order dated 31.8.2012, as well as, the subsequent order dated 5.12.2012). The list of properties furnished to this Court, could not have been so furnished, without theexpress approval. There can be no doubt about the aforesaid inference, because the stance now adopted by the petitioner shows, that the petitioner is in absolute charge of all the affairs of the companies. And nothing can move without his active involvement. During the course of hearing of the present petition, learned counsel have repeatedly emphasized that further deposits will be possible, only after the petitioner is released from judicial custody. This stance shows, that in the affairs of the Sahara Group, Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, is the only person who matters. And therefore, the other individual directors, may have hardly any say in the matter.48. The lists of properties which were provided by the two companies during the above exercise, were rejected by the SEBI, for good reason. It is not necessary for us to record the details herein, why the lists of properties furnished to this Court were found to be unacceptable. We may, however, record, that we were satisfied with the submissions advanced at the behest of the SEBI, that the proposed properties, would not secure the amount of the refund contemplated by the orders of this court. It is therefore, that another attempt was made, consequent upon an offer made on behalf of the two companies, that other companies within the framework of the Sahara Group, would also make available to the SEBI, their unencumbered immovable properties. Is it possible for anyone to say, after the petitioner agreed to provide the list of immovable properties, that he was not aware of the nature of proceedings being conducted in this Court, or their gravity? Is it possible for the petitioner to say, that he was not aware of the reason, why these lists were being furnished to this Court? There can be no doubt, that it was abundantly clear to the petitioner, that the properties mentioned in the lists furnished, would be sold if necessary, to comply with thisorder dated 31.8.2012. This was sufficient notice to the petitioner, of the seriousness of the situation.49. Since our efforts of this Court, to secure theinterests, determined vide its order dated 31.8.2012, were being systematically frustrated this Court in order to demonstrate the seriousness of the issue, directed thatthe alleged contemnors (respondents) shall not leave the country without the permission of thistill compliance of the above order. The above direction was issued on 28.10.2013. Is it open to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after the above restraint order was passed, to contend that the petitioner was not aware of the happenings in Court? He was aware that the above restraint order was passed, during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, which were initiated because of non-compliance of the orders dated 31.8.2012 and 5.12.2012. It is therefore incorrect to contend, that the petitioner had no notice, and was taken unawares. During the course of one of the subsequent hearings (on the subject), learned counsel representing the contemnors, clarified, that the properties in the list provided to this Court, could not be put to sale, in execution of the orders dated 31.8.2012 and 5.12.2012. What was the purpose sought to be achieved, if the properties (included in the list furnished to this Court) could not be sold, for the satisfaction of the judgment dated 31.8.2012? Surely, the contemnors, were taking this Court for a ride. The demeanour of the contemnors to stonewall the process of law, from the time investigation was commenced by the SEBI in 2009, continued even after the judicial process had attained finality, by thisorder dated 31.8.2012. All along the petitioner feigns ignorance of everything.50. Even though this Court had no intention to grant any relaxation to the contemnors, on the restraint order passed on 28.10.2013 (by which the contemnors, were stopped from leaving this country), yet when Interlocutory Application no. 4 was filed (in Contempt Petition (Civil) no. 260 of 2013), contending that Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, had foreign commitments, the Court relaxed the above order, and permitted the petitioner to go abroad. But, simultaneously the Court directed the petitioner, to immediately return back, and be present in the country, in case of non-compliance of thisdirections, (to submit original title deeds of unencumbered properties of the Sahara Group of Companies). On 21.11.2013, the Court was informed by the learned counsel for the contemnors, that the properties depicted in the list furnished to this Court (in furtherance of the order dated 28.10.2013), could not be sold without the approval of the Board of Directors, of the concerned companies (to which the individual properties belonged). The Court was then constrained to record, that the order dated 28.10.2013 passed by this Court, had not been complied with, in its letter and spirit. It is, therefore, the Court took one further step to demonstrate to the petitioner, as also, the other contemnors, the seriousness of the issue, by ordering on 21.11.2013that the Sahara Group of Companies shall not part with any movable or immovable property, until furtherIs it open to the petitioner to contend, that he had no notice, of the above Court proceedings? The business obligations of the petitioner, were bound to have been seriously affected, by the above order. The petitioner would have to be hugely unconcerned and disinterested, if he was still unaware of the nature of the ongoing contempt proceedings; and where the proceedings were leading to. The Court further directed (by the same order), that all the alleged contemnors would not leave the country, without the permission of this Court. By this, the Court restored its earlier order dated 28.10.2013. This order also had serious repercussions, for the petitioner. When the above order was passed, should the petitioner be permitted to contend, that he did not have any adverse business consequences? If it did, was it open for him to assert, that he had no notice, and was unaware about the direction towards which, the contempt proceedings wereHaving done the utmost, in requiring the contemnors to comply with the orders dated 31.8.2012 and 5.12.2012, wherein this Bench would meet exclusively for the benefit of the contemnors, the Court felt that it had miserably failed, to persuade the contemnors to comply with its directions. Accordingly on 4.3.2014, in exercise of the powers conferred under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordered the arrest and detention of all the contemnors (except Mrs. Vandana Bhargava) in judicial custody at Delhi, till the next date of hearing. By the order dated 4.3.2014, the Court expressly granted liberty to the contemnors to propose an acceptable solution, for execution of its orders. Mrs. Vandana Bhargava, who was excused from the order of detention, was permitted to coordinate with those whose detention the Court had ordered, so as to enable them to formulate an acceptable solution for execution of the above orders. It is apparent, that right from the beginning, and even after ordering the detention of the contemnors including the petitioner herein, The Court was only endeavouring, to ensure the compliance of the orders passed by this Court on 31.8.2012 and 5.12.2012. On the following date of hearing i.e., on 7.3.2014, at the asking of the learned counsel representing the contemnors, we enhanced the visitation times permissible to the detenues, so as to enable them to meet their financial consultants and lawyers for two hours every day.Our leniency is apparent from the fact, that we have by our order dated 26.3.2014 ordered the petitioner and the other contemnors to be released on bail, on the receipt of a payment of Rs.10,000 crores, which is less than a third of the amount presently due. That would constitute, the first small step, taken by the contemnors, for the satisfaction of the orders passed by this Court on 31.8.2012 and 5.12.2012. The above orders must, under all circumstances, be given effect to in letter and spirit, and till that is done, the process of enforcing compliance, shall have to go on. The petitioner may be released from judicial custody, if he complies with our order dated 26.3.2014. That would however not excuse the petitioner from making the balance payment, in terms of the orders dated 31.8.2012 and 5.12.2012, even if it means the re-arrest of the petitioner again and again, for the purpose of compliance of this. One of the emphatic contentions advanced by some of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that execution of a money-decree by way of arrest was a procedureRecourse to arrest of an individual for recovery of money, according to one learned counsel, constituted a. During the course of their submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner, chose to address the Court by using language, which we had not heard (either as practicing Advocates, or even as Judges in the High Courts or this Court). We would, however, unhesitatingly state, that it is not possible for us to accept, that learned counsel who addressed the instant submission, were unaware of the relevant provisions of law. It is however interesting to notice, that in the written submissions handed over to us during the course of hearing, reference was actually made to such a provision. It was asserted in the written submissions prepared by Mr. Ram Jethmalani, thatimprisonment for failure to comply with a decree or order for payment of money can be inflicted on a person liable to pay in compliance, without complying with the conditions of Section 51 proviso (b) of the CPC.A contradiction in terms. But there were many such contradictions, even on facts. A new phase of advocacy seems to have dawned.From the above provisions of the CPC, as also, the Cr.P.C. it is apparent, that to enforce a financial liability ordered by a Court, one of the permissible means is, by way of arrest and detention. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is no provision, whereunder, an order of arrest and detention can be passed, for the execution of a money-decree, cannot therefore be accepted. It is also not possible for us to infer, that learned counsel were oblivious of the provisions contained in the civil/criminal procedure codes. It may be pointed out, that there are a large number of standalone statutory enactments, whereunder arrest and detention is ordered for the execution of a financial liability.e are of the view that the conditions contemplated in Section 51 of the CPC as preconditions, for the arrest and detention of a judgment-debtor for executing aorder, can be demonstrated as having been duly complied with, before this Court passed the impugned order dated 04.03.2014. The proviso to Section 51 of the CPC contemplates certain preconditions for execution of a money-decree by way of arrest and detention in prison. As already discussed above, on the satisfaction of any one of the preconditions, a money-decree can be executed, by ordering arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in prison.We are prima facie satisfied, that yet another pre-condition contemplated in the proviso to Section 51 of the CPC was also made out. The reason for expressing the instant view is, that no clear responses were ever given by the two companies. The position remained the same whether those answers were sought by the SEBI(FTM), or the SAT, or even by this Court.The three preceding paragraphs clearly demonstrate, that three different conditions contemplated in the proviso to Section 51 of the CPC, were satisfied, before we ordered the arrest and detention of the contemnors, for enforcement of the orders passed by this Court. Satisfaction of any one of the conditions, expressed in the foregoing three paragraphs, would have been sufficient to order the arrest and detention of the petitioner, under Section 51 of the CPC. Our instant determination should not be understood to mean, that Section 51 of the CPC is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The instant determination should only be understood to mean, that the parameters laid down in Section 51 of the CPC, stood fully satisfied, before the arrest and detention order dated 4.3.2014 was passed.74. For the same reasons as have been recorded in the foregoing paragraph, even rules 37 and 40 of Order XXI of the CPC, would be inapplicable for the execution of thisorders dated 31.8.2012 and 5.12.2012. Firstly, because the above provisions of the CPC, relating to execution, have not been made applicable for enforcement of orders passed under the SEBI Act. Secondly, a perusal of rule 37(1) of Order XXI of the CPC reveals, that where a Court is satisfied that the judgment-debtor is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, the procedural requirements of the aforesaid rules is expressly excluded. Likewise, sub-rule (2) of rule 37 of Order XXI of the CPC provides, that the procedural requirements depicted therein, would be inapplicable when the judgment-debtor does not enter appearance before a Court in obedience of a notice issued to him. The impression of this Court, that the appellant would abscond, and the fact, that the appellant did not enter appearance when summoned to do so, is apparent from the orders passed by this Court (already extract above). Yet, at the cost of repetition, we may reiterate, that by an order dated 28.10.2013, this Court directed, thatalleged contemnors (respondents) shall not leave the country without the permission of thisEven though the above order was relaxed by this Court on a request made by the petitioner, yet once again on 21.11.2013 this Court directedthe alleged contemnors shall not leave the country without the permission of this Court.The above restraint order was subsisting when theorder of arrest and detention was passed. Furthermore, having expressed its satisfaction, that the information furnished by the contemnors (including the petitioner) did not establish the stance adopted by them, this Court by its order dated 20.2.2014 noticing the defiant and non-cooperative attitude of the contemnors, had directedpersonal presence of the alleged contemnors and the directors of the respondent companies in Court on February 26, 2014 at 2.00On 25.2.2014, a mention was made on behalf of the petitioner herein, for exemption from personal presence on 26.2.2014. The same was declined. Despite the above refusal, Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara did not enter appearance before this Court on 26.2.2014. The other directors were present. Thus there is no room for any doubt, that the above provision was rendered inapplicable, insofar as the petitioner is concerned. A perusal of rule 40 of Order XXI of the CPC reveals, that the procedural requirements expressed in the same, would come into play inter alia, after the person concernedis brought before the Court after being arrested in execution of a decree for payment ofReference to above rule, on behalf of the petitioner, is therefore wholly misconceived. The above deliberations, should not be understood to mean, that the aforesaid provisions of the CPC, relied upon by the learned counsel, were applicable to this case. The above deliberations only demonstrated, that the parameters laid down in the above provisions cannot be stated to have been disregarded, when the impugned order dated 4.3.2014 was passed.75. Insofar as rule 6 of Order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, is concerned, the same mandates the enforcement of an order passed by this Court, by transmitting the order to be enforced to theor Tribunal in the way prescribed byWe have already concluded hereinabove, that no executing mechanism was in place under the provisions of the SEBI Act, when the orders dated 31.8.2012 and 5.12.2012 were passed. Thus viewed, even rule 6 of Order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 would be inapplicable to deal with the issue in hand, as it was not possible for this Court to transmitto the Court or Tribunal from which the appeal was broughtfor execution of thisorders dated 31.8.2012 and 5.12.2012.We find each one of the submissions advanced by Mr. Arvind Datar on behalf of the SEBI, as fully justified. We have recorded our own observations, at the end of each of the above paragraphs, dealing with the factual position brought to our notice, by the learned Senior Counsel for the SEBI. We are satisfied, that Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara was well aware of the proceedings before this Court. He was well aware of the prayers made in Interlocutory Application nos. 68 and 69 of 2013. He filed his written response thereto, by way of an affidavit. The petitioner was aware of the seriousness of the issue, on account of various restraining, corrective and deterrent orders passed by this Court, from time to time, each graver than the previous ones. He remained unaffected to all the efforts made by this Court, to enforce refund of the moneys collected by the two companies, to those who had invested in theiralong with interest, in terms of thisorders dated 31.8.2012 and 5.12.2012.It is, therefore, that this Court was left with no other option, but to order the arrest and detention of two of the directors, and Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara. We were satisfied, that the above order was necessary to ensure the observance of the due process of law, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The above order was also imperative, if we were to perform our duties and functions effectively, and if we were to maintain the majesty of law and/or the dignity of the Supreme Court.The assertion, that we would not be satisfied under any circumstances, with thearguments and submissions on merits, is clearly misconceived. The assertion made by the petitioner, that we had already prejudged the matter, and no relief could be expected from us, is likewise a total misconstruction of the proceedings we are dealing with. It needs to be understood, that there is no lis pending before us, wherein we have to determine the merits of the claims raised by the rival parties. In a situation, where rival claims of parties, have to be decided on merits, such a submission could have possibly been made. Merits of the claims (and counter-claims) have already been settled by thisorder dated 31.8.2012. The proceeding wherein the impugned order was passed, was being conducted in the contempt jurisdiction of this Court (under Article 129 of the Constitution of India). The scope of the instant contempt jurisdiction extends to, punishing contemnors for violatingorders; punishing contemnors for disobeyingorders; punishing contemnors for breach of undertakings given to Courts. It also extends to enforcement oforders. Contempt jurisdiction even extends to punishing those who scandalize (or lower the authority of) any Court; punishing those who interfere in due course of judicial proceedings; and punishing those who obstruct the administration of justice. During the course of hearing, learned counsel again and again, admitted breach of thisorders, dated 31.8.2012 and 5.12.2012. It was inter alia admitted, that payments could not be made within the time frame stipulated. Contempt by way of breach of thisorders having been admitted, the allegation of bias is clearly a plea which is not available to the petitioner. In such consideration, there is no room which remains for further adjudication on merits. There cannot, therefore be a prejudged mind (all that has to be decided, has already been adjudged). For the same reason, there is no scope for a compromise. Issues of compromise arise between parties, while merits of rival claims are pending. The dispute between the parties has already been settled, and contempt by way of breach has already been admitted. The question of compromise does not arise at all. We therefore reject all the above submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.107.are satisfied that none of the disguised aspersions cast by learned Senior Counsel, would be sufficient to justify the invocation of the maxim, that justice must not actually be done, but must also appear to be done. As already noticed above, even though our combination as a Bench, did not exist at the time, when the present petition was filed, a Special Bench, with the present composition, was constituted bythe Chief Justice, as a matter of his conscious determination. No litigant, can be permitted to dissuade us, in discharging the onerous responsibility assigned to us bye of the proposals is just not possible, in the teeth of the order dated 5.12.2012, passed by a three-Judge Division Bench, requiring the two companies to make a deposit of Rs.10,000 crores in the first week of January, 2013. By now, about 17 further months have elapsed without the petitioner and the two companies having made any deposit whatsoever. Within the framework of the requirement depicted in the order dated 5.12.2012, we, by our own order dated 26.3.2014 (extracted above), softened the modus of payment. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept, that there has beenplay in thefor the enforcement of the orders passed by this Court. We find the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect, that our order dated 26.3.2013 cannot be complied with, because it was premised on impossible conditions, is wholly unjustified. The assets of the Sahara Group are sufficient to discharge the entire liability, without much difficulty.110. Insofar as the assertion made by Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel, that the factual position expressed in the order dated 4.3.2014 was not correct, is concerned, we may at the cost of repetition once again notice, that it is also important for us to record that the positive position expressed by the SEBI before this Court (during the disposal of Civil Appeal Nos.9813 and 9833 of 2011) was, that neither SIRECL nor SHICL ever provided details of its investors to the SEBI (FTM). They contested the proceedings initiated by the SEBI (FTM) only on technical grounds. We were told that even before the SAT, no details were furnished. As against the above, the position adopted by the SIRECL before us, during the course of appellate proceedings was, that SIRECL had furnished a compact disc with all details to the SEBI (FTM), along with its operating key. Whilst it was acknowledged by the SEBI before this Court, that a compact disc (allegedly containing details about the investors) was furnished by SIRECL, yet it was emphatically pointed out, that its operating key was withheld. This was another ploy, in the series of moves adopted by the two companies to withhold the providing of any details to the SEBI. Resultantly, no details whatsoever were ever disclosed by SIRECL either before the SEBI (FTM) or the SAT. The position adopted by SHICL was even worse. It is necessary to place on record the fact, that the SHICL has never ever disclosed, the names and other connected details of even a single investor to the SEBI, despite this prolonged litigation. We had repeatedly made a poser, during the hearing of the present petition, about SHICL, as indicated above. The position was confirmed by learned Senior Counsel representing the SEBI. Unfortunately, Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, on the last day of hearing, ventured to contest the above position. He handed over to us two volumes of papers running into 260 pages (under the title – Note on information provided by SHICL to the SEBI). We required him to invite our attention, to documents indicating disclosure of the above information. His ploy stood exposed, when no material depicting disclosure of names, and other connected details of SHICL to the SEBI, could be brought to our notice. That apart, what is essential to record is, that till date SHICL has never ever supplied investor related details to the SEBI. A fact about which there is now no ambiguity, specially after learned Senior Counsel filed the two volumes of papers referred to above. The above factual position remained unaltered before the SAT and even before this Court. Does it lie in the mouth of learned Senior Counsel to assert, that unjustified conclusions had been recorded against the two companies, without anyr as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is necessary to highlight the fact, that the order dated 31.8.2012 directed the two companies, to deposit with the SEBI, the entire redeemable amount along with interest at the rate of 15%. The above deposit had to be made within a period of three months, i.e., by 30.11.2012. The case set up by the two companies has been, that SIRECL had already refunded Rs.17,443 crores to the investors, and SHICL had likewise refunded Rs.5,442 crores. The two companies therefore assert, that they cannot be required to make the same payment to the investors, for the second time. It would be pertinent to mention, that the two companies had approached this Court by filing Civil Appeal no. 8643 of 2012 (and Writ Petition (Civil) no. 527 of 2012). In the said proceedings, the two companies had sought exemption from depositing the amounts, which they had allegedly redeemed. The three-Judge Division Bench, which heard the matter(s), did not accept the redemption theory projected by the two companies. Accordingly, the prayer made by the two companies in Civil Appeal no.8643 of 2012 (and Writ Petition (Civil) no. 527 of 2012) for deduction of the above amount, was not accepted by this Court, when it passed the final order dated 5.12.2012. Accordingly, the companies were directed to deposit the entire balance amount of Rs.17,400 crores. It is, therefore imperative to conclude, that the issue of deduction of allegedly redeemed funds, stood concluded against the two companies, when this Court passed its order dated 5.12.2012. This plea is no longer available to the two companies, in law. To continue to harp on the alleged redemptions, is clearly a misrepresentation, specially when the order dated 5.12.2012 has attained finality.121. Therefore, viewed from any angle, there is no substance in the contention advanced on behalf of the two companies, that the moneys payable to the investors had been refunded to them. Accordingly, there is no merit in the prayer, that while making payments in compliance with thisorders dated 31.8.2012 and 5.12.2012, the two companies were entitled to make deductions of Rs.17,443 crores (insofar as SIRECL is concerned) and Rs.5,442 crores (insofar as SHICL is concerned). Be that as it may, we have still retained a safety valve, inasmuch as, the SEBI has been directed to examine the authenticity of the documents produced by the two companies, and in case the SEBI finds, that redemptions have actually been made, the two companies will be refunded the amounts, equal to the redemptions found to have been genuinely made.122. We are persuaded to record, that either the submissions made to this Court on the subject of refunds made by the two companies were false; or the present projection of the two companies of their inability to pay the investors is false. One learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Ganesh, during the course of his narration, in order to substantiate the redemption ofto the tune of thousands of crores of rupees, referred to the collection of thousands of crores of rupees in successive months, during the year 2012, from the account books of the two companies. On a single day (31.5.2012), the cash inflow is shown as Rs.15,535,89,65,601.00 (i.e. more than Rupees fifteen thousand five hundred and thirty five crores). This was done by collecting funds from all companies (and firms, under the conglomerate) of the Sahara Group. If it was possible to do that, at that juncture, in order to redeem the payments claimed by investors, we fail to understand why the same cannot be done now. Specially when, as already noticed hereinabove, the book value/market value of the properties of the Sahara Group conglomerate, is to the tune of Rs.1,52,500 crores (as per its own website). It is after all, close to 2 years (about 20 months) since the order dated 31.8.2012 was pronounced, and close to 1½ years (about 17 months) since the order dated 5.12.2012 was passed.It is apparent from the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that even learned counsel representing the petitioner, were not sure about the maintainability of the instant petition. Each of them while adopted an independent stance, and was unwilling to accept the position adopted by his other two colleagues. In the above view of the matter, we would have been happy to follow a simple course. To reject themaintainability, on the basis of the majority view, expressed by the learned counsel representing the petitioner himself. Such rejection would be, by a majority of 2:1. Learned counsel were probably independently conscious of the legal position, that the petition was not maintainable. Unfortunately, this course is not open to a Court of law. We will have to examine the maintainability of the petition, by taking into consideration all the perspectives presented before us. The burden will naturally be three-folds than the usual. However, keeping in mind the eminence of the learned Senior Counsel who represented the petitioner, it is not possible for us, at first blush, to draw any such inference. We shall endeavour to independently determine the issue of maintainability, canvassed at the hands of all the learned counsel representing the petitioner. In case we arrive at the conclusion, that the submission of any one of the learned counsel is acceptable, we would treat the instant petition as maintainable.We are of the view, thatreliance by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on Supreme Court Barcase (supra) and on M.S.case (supra) is wholly misconceived on account of the determination rendered by this Court in Rupa Ashok. We are in absolute agreement with the submissions advanced by Mr. Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. In view of the factual position depicted in this judgment (under the heading:the impugned order dated 4.3.2014 was passed, in violation of the rules of naturalbased on the pleas advanced by the petitioner on merits, it is apparent, that the rules of natural justice were followed to the hilt, before the impugned order dated 4.3.2014 was passed. Accordingly, the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit is not available to the petitioner.138. We have recorded hereinabove, that the instant petition is not maintainable, because the challenge raised by the petitioner herein, on the grounds of a jurisdictional error, or non compliance of the rules of natural justice have been found to be not made out in this case. That was the only basis of interference in Naresh Sridharcase (supra). We are however persuaded, to record another reason for not accepting the maintainability of the present writ petition, on the basis of Naresh Sridharcase (supra). In this behalf it is relevant to notice, from the factual background of Naresh Sridharcase (supra) which has been traced hereinabove, that A.R. Antulay, had earlier approached this Court, by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India (just in the same manner, as the petitioner herein has approached this Court). A two-Judge Division Bench of this Court dismissed the petition by observing inter alia, that a writ petition challenging the validity of an order and judgment passed by the Supreme Court as nullity or otherwise incorrect, could not be entertained. The said writ petition was accordingly dismissed (Abdul Rehman Antulay v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) no. 708 of 1984, decided on 17.4.1984; reported as Appendix, (1988) 2 SCC 764). In the above view of the matter also, even on the basis of the very judgment relied upon by the learned counsel, we have no other alternative but to conclude, that the instant writ petition is not maintainable, to assail the impugned order passed by this Court on 4.3.2014.4.3.2014.144. For all the reasons recorded hereinabove we are of the view, that the instant petition is not maintainable and the same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
### Instruction:
Predict the outcome of the case proceeding (1 for acceptance, 0 for rejection) and subsequently provide an explanation based on significant sentences in the proceeding.

### Input:
Court in, Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case (supra), the relevant observations wherefrom, have already been extracted hereinabove. 142. Last of all, we shall endavour to deal with the submission advanced by Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel, to the effect that the instant petition was maintainable in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court, under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India. The above provisions are being extracted hereunder;- “129. Supreme Court to be a court of record - The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc. - (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.”Relying on the above provisions, learned Senior Counsel asserted, that “maintainability exists, because we can all make mistakes, and the mistakes that we make, need to be corrected”. The submission of the learned counsel in this behalf was, that in the above view of the matter, jurisdiction could truly be traced, to Articles 129 and 142 for correcting mistakes. It was the submission of the learned counsel, that this Court being a Court of record, had unlimited jurisdiction to correct all mistakes committed by it. Referring to Article 142 of the Constitution of India it was submitted, that it was the pious obligation of Court to do complete justice, and accordingly, whenever injustice was traceable, it was imperative for this Court to rectify the same. On the subject under reference, learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case (supra) and invited our pointed attention to following observations recorded therein:-“23. These contentions pose the question, whether an order passed by this Court can be corrected under its inherent powers after dismissal of the review petition on the ground that it was passed either without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice or due to unfair procedure giving scope for bias which resulted in abuse of the process of the Court or miscarriage of justice to an aggrieved person.xxx xxx xxx49. The upshot of the discussion in our view is that this Court, to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice, may re-consider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power.50. The next step is to specify the requirements to entertain such a curative petition under the inherent power of this Court so that floodgates are not opened for filing a second review petition as a matter of course in the guise of a curative petition under inherent power. It is common ground that except when very strong reasons exist, the Court should not entertain an application seeking reconsideration of an order of this Court which has become final on dismissal of a review petition. It is neither advisable nor possible to enumerate all the grounds on which such a petition may be entertained.”(emphasis is ours) 143. It is not possible for us to accept the contention advanced at the hands of the learned Senior Counsel. By placing reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case (supra), learned counsel must be deemed to have impliedly conceded the issue, against himself. In Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case (supra), this Court examined the remedies available to an individual. In the above judgment, this Court examined the ambit and scope of Article 137 of the Constitution of India, whereunder, a review petition could be filed for the correction of an error apparent on the face of the record. In the judgment relied upon, this Court also expressed the view, that a curative petition could be filed for corrections of such like errors, after a review petition had been dismissed. It is relevant to mention, that in furtherance of the directions issued by this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case (supra), this Court has framed rules, for entertaining curative petitions. Such curative petitions, when entertained, are placed before a five-Judge Bench including the senior most three Judges of this Court. Placing reliance on Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case (supra) evidences, that the petitioner was aware of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 137 of the Constitution of India for filing a review petition, as also, the permissibility of filing a curative petition, after the concerned party had not succeeded, in the review petition. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not chosen either of the above jurisdictions. The instant petition has been styled as a criminal writ petition. The instant petition is not maintainable as no fresh petition is shown to be maintainable, under the provisions (Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India), relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel. Moreover, our deliberations on the merits of the controversy further reveals, that there is neither any jurisdictional error, nor any error in law has been shown to be made out, from the impugned order dated 4.3.2014.144. For all the reasons recorded hereinabove we are of the view, that the instant petition is not maintainable and the same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. XI. Conclusions

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
companies, that the moneys payable to the investors had been refunded to them. Accordingly, there is no merit in the prayer, that while making payments in compliance with thisorders dated 31.8.2012 and 5.12.2012, the two companies were entitled to make deductions of Rs.17,443 crores (insofar as SIRECL is concerned) and Rs.5,442 crores (insofar as SHICL is concerned). Be that as it may, we have still retained a safety valve, inasmuch as, the SEBI has been directed to examine the authenticity of the documents produced by the two companies, and in case the SEBI finds, that redemptions have actually been made, the two companies will be refunded the amounts, equal to the redemptions found to have been genuinely made.122. We are persuaded to record, that either the submissions made to this Court on the subject of refunds made by the two companies were false; or the present projection of the two companies of their inability to pay the investors is false. One learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Ganesh, during the course of his narration, in order to substantiate the redemption ofto the tune of thousands of crores of rupees, referred to the collection of thousands of crores of rupees in successive months, during the year 2012, from the account books of the two companies. On a single day (31.5.2012), the cash inflow is shown as Rs.15,535,89,65,601.00 (i.e. more than Rupees fifteen thousand five hundred and thirty five crores). This was done by collecting funds from all companies (and firms, under the conglomerate) of the Sahara Group. If it was possible to do that, at that juncture, in order to redeem the payments claimed by investors, we fail to understand why the same cannot be done now. Specially when, as already noticed hereinabove, the book value/market value of the properties of the Sahara Group conglomerate, is to the tune of Rs.1,52,500 crores (as per its own website). It is after all, close to 2 years (about 20 months) since the order dated 31.8.2012 was pronounced, and close to 1½ years (about 17 months) since the order dated 5.12.2012 was passed.It is apparent from the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that even learned counsel representing the petitioner, were not sure about the maintainability of the instant petition. Each of them while adopted an independent stance, and was unwilling to accept the position adopted by his other two colleagues. In the above view of the matter, we would have been happy to follow a simple course. To reject themaintainability, on the basis of the majority view, expressed by the learned counsel representing the petitioner himself. Such rejection would be, by a majority of 2:1. Learned counsel were probably independently conscious of the legal position, that the petition was not maintainable. Unfortunately, this course is not open to a Court of law. We will have to examine the maintainability of the petition, by taking into consideration all the perspectives presented before us. The burden will naturally be three-folds than the usual. However, keeping in mind the eminence of the learned Senior Counsel who represented the petitioner, it is not possible for us, at first blush, to draw any such inference. We shall endeavour to independently determine the issue of maintainability, canvassed at the hands of all the learned counsel representing the petitioner. In case we arrive at the conclusion, that the submission of any one of the learned counsel is acceptable, we would treat the instant petition as maintainable.We are of the view, thatreliance by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on Supreme Court Barcase (supra) and on M.S.case (supra) is wholly misconceived on account of the determination rendered by this Court in Rupa Ashok. We are in absolute agreement with the submissions advanced by Mr. Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. In view of the factual position depicted in this judgment (under the heading:the impugned order dated 4.3.2014 was passed, in violation of the rules of naturalbased on the pleas advanced by the petitioner on merits, it is apparent, that the rules of natural justice were followed to the hilt, before the impugned order dated 4.3.2014 was passed. Accordingly, the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit is not available to the petitioner.138. We have recorded hereinabove, that the instant petition is not maintainable, because the challenge raised by the petitioner herein, on the grounds of a jurisdictional error, or non compliance of the rules of natural justice have been found to be not made out in this case. That was the only basis of interference in Naresh Sridharcase (supra). We are however persuaded, to record another reason for not accepting the maintainability of the present writ petition, on the basis of Naresh Sridharcase (supra). In this behalf it is relevant to notice, from the factual background of Naresh Sridharcase (supra) which has been traced hereinabove, that A.R. Antulay, had earlier approached this Court, by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India (just in the same manner, as the petitioner herein has approached this Court). A two-Judge Division Bench of this Court dismissed the petition by observing inter alia, that a writ petition challenging the validity of an order and judgment passed by the Supreme Court as nullity or otherwise incorrect, could not be entertained. The said writ petition was accordingly dismissed (Abdul Rehman Antulay v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) no. 708 of 1984, decided on 17.4.1984; reported as Appendix, (1988) 2 SCC 764). In the above view of the matter also, even on the basis of the very judgment relied upon by the learned counsel, we have no other alternative but to conclude, that the instant writ petition is not maintainable, to assail the impugned order passed by this Court on 4.3.2014.4.3.2014.144. For all the reasons recorded hereinabove we are of the view, that the instant petition is not maintainable and the same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
