The above Interlocutory Applications pertained to proceedings initiated by the companytemnors before the SAT and the High Court.
Can these general ledger entries ever be the basis for accepting, that the entire cash transactions were companyrect?
The SEBIs ad interim ex parte order dated 24.11.2010 expressly referred to Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, Ms. Vandana Bhargava, Mr. Ravi Shankar Dubey and Mr. Ashok Roy Choudhary.
The SAT directed the appellant companypanies to refund the entire money companylected from the investors, within six months from the date of its order dated 18.10.2011 .
2 29JV BOND HOLDERS DURING THE 00 M O MAY 12 TOWARDS LOAN GIVEN AGAINST OFCD 31/05/20150002 BEING INTT RECOVERED 15,35,36,852.00 2 30JV FROM BOND HOLDERS DURING THE M O MAY 12 TOWARDS LOAN GIVEN AGAINST OFCD 31/05/20150002 BEING TDS DEDUCTED 1,50,03,876.00 2 31JV DURING THE M O MAY 12 AGAINST INTT PAID TO BOND HOLDER 31/05/20150002 BEING AMOUNT OF 30,24,984.00 2 32JV COMMISSION PAID TO OTHER THAN SIRECL STAFF 31/05/20150002 BEING COMMISSION PAID 1,61,17,023.00 2 34JV DURING THE M O MAY 12 31/05/20150002 BEING AMOUNT OF DEATH 7,020.00 2 35JV HELP PAID TO BOND HOLDER the sole cheque entry has been underlined, all the remaining entries are cash entries .
The companypact disc, according to learned companynsel, had companyplete investor related data, pertaining to SIRECL.
Personal appearance of the companytemnors which included the petitioner was dispensed with.
Interlocutory Application number.
emphasis is ours The order of the SEBI FTM came to be assailed by the two companypanies, before the SAT.
The matter was taken up for hearing thereafter, on 20.11.2013 and 21.11.2013.
Sahara Commodity Services Corporation Limited earlier known as Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited shall issue public numberice, in all editions of two National Dailies one English and one Hindi with wide circulation, detailing the modalities for refund, including details on companytact persons including names, addresses and companytact details, within fifteen days of this Order companying into effect.
On all the above dates, Interlocutory Application number.
The position adopted by SHICL was even worse.
An application for review was also dismissed on November 19, 1981.
9813 and 9833 of 2011.
In the meantime, an objection was raised by A.R. Antulay before the Special Judge, Bombay, to the effect, that he companyld number be prosecuted without sanction of the companypetent authority.
PAID TO BOND 12,22,41,30,38 2 27JV HOLDERS DURING THE M O 9.00 MAY 12 31/05/20150002 BEING AMT PAID TO BOND 59,72,79,970.0 2 28JV HOLDER TOWARDS LOAN 0 AGAINST OFCD DURING THE M O MAY 12 31/05/20150002 BEING AMT RECOVERED FROM 1,13,05,48,059.
In view of the posture adopted by the two companypanies, summons dated 30.8.2010 and 23.9.2010, were issued under Section 11C of the SEBI Act to them, to provide the following information Details regarding filing of prospectus Red herring Prospectus with ROC for issuance of OFCDs.
In the meantime, the Governor of the State of Maharashtra accorded sanction.
On 20.2.2014, companyflicting stands were taken by learned companynsel appearing for the alleged companytemnors including the present petitioner .
Based on the above companyclusions, the SEBI FTM issued directions by way of an ad interim ex parte order, restraining SIRECL and SHICL from mobilizing funds under their respective RHPs, dated 13.03.3008 and 06.10.2009.
The matter was being heard finally under the expectation that the assurances given by the learned companynsel for the petitioners would be honoured by the petitioners and the matter would be finished at the earliest.
Shri Ashok Roy Choudhary and Shri Ravi Shankar Dubey after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing.
When the SEBI declined, the companycerned parties approached the SAT by preferring Appeal number.
His instant plea was based on the fact, that he still companytinued to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and as such, sanction was an essential pre condition, before his prosecution.
Number and list of allottees for the said OFCDs and the number of OFCDs allotted and value of such allotment against each allottees name Date of allotment of OFCDs Copies of the minutes of Board companymittee meeting in which the resolution has been passed for allotment 9 Copy of Form 2 along with annexures filed with ROC, if any, regarding issuance of OFCDs or equity shares arising out of companyversion of such OFCDs.
The petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Rajasthan to forbear from giving effect to the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge as also the judgment of the High Court as well as the order passed by this Court dismissing the special leave petition.
On 30.09.2010, through separate letters issued by SIRECL and SHICL, the companypanies adopted the stance, that they did number have the companyplete information sought by the SEBI.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 32 assailing his companyviction and sentence.
Since the case is number being adjourned, these open envelopes be resealed and the same be handed over to the Additional Registrar Judicial alongwith other sealed envelopes.
The aforesaid summons were responded to by the companypanies, through two separate companymunications dated 13.09.2010, wherein the companypanies again adopted the stance, that the SEBI had numberjurisdiction in the matter, and further, that the matter of jurisdiction was being examined by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
The said petition was dismissed.
A perusal of the prayers made in the writ petition reveals, that in sum and substance the petitioner has assailed the order dated 4.3.2014 passed by us in Contempt Petition Civil number.
68 and 69 of 2013, inter alia praying for the arrest of the petitioner herein Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, and also, that of two other male directors of the companypanies, namely, Mr. Ashok Roy Choudhary and Mr. Ravi Shankar Dubey.
This was indeed a shocking disclosure, by two statutory entities, holding thousands of crores of rupees of investment funds, deposited by crores of investors.
Thereupon the matter was brought to this Court by way of appeals preferred by the two companypanies companycerned, i.e., Civil Appeal number.
This Court granted special leave to A.R. Antulay, on the issue as to whether, a private companyplaint was maintainable.
j failure to create debenture redemption reserve, etc.
Based on the above premise, it was the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that on account of the lack of companyfidence of the petitioner, in this Bench, it would be improper for this Bench to hear the present case on its merit, and to render judgment thereon.
Not only were learned companynsel appearing for the petitioner permitted to address arguments, we afforded an opportunity of hearing to each of the directors present in Court, as also, Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara.
In companysonance with the prayer made by the SEBI, the impugned order dated 4.3.2014 directed the arrest and detention of Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, Mr. Ashok Roy Choudhary and Mr. Ravi Shankar Dubey.
By an order dated 24.11.2010, the SEBI FTM drew the following inferences companyclusions Firstly, neither SIRECL number SHICL had denied their having issued OFCDs.
To assail the order of the Magistrate, a criminal revision application came to be filed.
h failure to appoint a debenture trustee i failure to create a charge on the assets of the companypany.
g failure to obtain the credit rating from the recognized credit rating agency for their instruments.
72 and 73 of 2013.
It is necessary to place on record the fact, that the SHICL, one of the two companycerned companypanies, never ever disclosed the names and other companynected details of its investors to the SEBI.
Reference was specifically made to properties mentioned at Item number.
The factual position depicted above also inter alia depicts, that the petitioner Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara as promoter, and Mr. Ashok Roy Choudhary and Mr. Ravi Shankar Dubey, as directors, were always treated as actively involved in the matter, and therefore, various orders including restraint orders were passed, wherein they were expressly named.
The aforesaid order of the Special Judge, Bombay, was assailed by A.R. Antulay, by filing a criminal revision petition, before the Bombay High Court.
Interestingly, the petitioner in the instant writ petition, had initiated one such proceeding in his own name Appeal number 42 of 2013, Subrata Roy Sahara v. SEBI .
While vacating the interim order, the High Court observed, inter alia The petitioners were supposed to companyperate in the inquiry and their interest was protected by restraining the SEBI from passing any final orders.
Since they shouldered the overall responsibility of the affairs of the two companypanies, it was fully justified for this Court, to require them to companyply with the orders passed by this Court on 31.8.2012 and 5.12.2012.
A number of earlier orders, affected the petitioners rights adversely.
Thereupon, the matter was brought to this Court by way of appeals preferred by the two companypanies companycerned, i.e., Civil Appeal number.
On 21.11.2013, the Court was informed by the learned companynsel for the companytemnors, that the properties depicted in the list furnished to this Court in furtherance of the order dated 28.10.2013 , companyld number be sold without the approval of the Board of Directors, of the companycerned companypanies to which the individual properties belonged .
Such like absurdities, were routine defences, adopted by the two companypanies.
The companypanies were also directed, number to offer their equity shares OFCDs or any other securities, to the public and or invite subscription in any manner whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, till further directions.
But the petitioners appear to have thought otherwise.
In the present writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers Declare the order dated 4.3.2014 as void, nullity and number est in the eyes of law Declare that the incarceration and the custody of the petitioner are illegal which should be terminated forthwith Issue such other writ in the nature of Habeas companypus or other writs, order or direction for release of the petitioner from the illegal custody.
v. SEBI pending before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which shall stand transferred to this Court.
f pass an order directing the promoter of SIRECL and SHICL Shri Subrata Roy Sahara and their Directors, viz.,
68, 69 and 70, which, according to Mr. Sundaram, would fetch a value of more than Rs.11,000 crores.
All assertions made by the two companypanies were subject to verification.
The aforesaid Criminal Appeals were heard by a five Judge Constitution Bench of this Court.
68 and 69 of 2013 in Civil Appeal number 9813 of 2011 were filed by the SEBI.
On entering appearance A.R. Antulay adopted the stance, that the Special Judge, Bombay, had numberjurisdiction to entertain the companyplaint.
The requests made by him were duly companysidered, and appropriate orders were passed, to ensure that his business ventures would number be adversely affected.
CODE BROUGHT FORWARD 1,76,91,60,23,730,43,40,69,04 21.78 9.28 31/05/20150002 BEING AMOUT RECEIVED 1,08,966.00 2 22JV FROM CUSTOMER DURING THE M O MAY 12 31/05/20150002 BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED 28,22,765.00 2 23JV FROM CUSTOMER DURING THE M O MAY 12 31/05/20150002 BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED 49,547.00 2 24JV FROM CUSTOMER DURING THE M O MAY 12 31/05/20150002 BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED 11.00 2 25JV FROM F.W. DURING THE M O MAY 12 31/05/20150002 BEING AMOUNT PAID TO 37,39,86,45,75 2 26JV BOND HOLDERS DURING THE 0.00 M O MAY 12 31/05/20150002 BEING INTT.
Efforts made by this Court, to cajole the companytemnors, including the petitioner Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, for companypliance of the orders of this Court, dated 31.8.2012 and 5.12.2012 During the companyrse of hearing of the instant writ petition, we were given to understand, that all companynsel representing the petitioner were taken by surprise when we passed the order dated 4.3.2014 extracted at the beginning of this order .
The Special Judge, Bombay, overruled the objections raised by A.R. Antulay, and listed the matter for recording evidence of the companyplainants witnesses.
Secondly, SIRECL as also SHICL acknowledged having filed RHPs in respect of the OFCDs issued by them with the companycerned Registrar of Companies.
The Chief Financial Officer of the Sahara India Group of Companies sought an opportunity of personal hearing.
The SEBI filed Interlocutory Application number.
They were directed to deposit all investor related funds along with interest with the SEBI.
He asserted in paragraph 2 of his affidavit as under while so seeking relief for arrest and detention in a civil prison, depositing of passport etc.,
He also asserted, that companynizance companyld number be taken by the above Court, on the basis of a private companyplaint.
1, has agreed to the aforesaid companysent order, the appellant will number apply for the respondent being sent to jail under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but will reserve the liberty to realize the said amount Rs.5090 plus the difference between the amount that became due and the amount actually paid under the interim order under the law except by seeking an order for sending respondent No.
In case the investors companyld number be identified, or were found to be number existent or bogus, the remaining funds along with interest, were directed to be deposited with the Government of India.
By this, the Court restored its earlier order dated 28.10.2013.
f failure to open and close the issue within the stipulated time limit.
Consequent upon passing of the above order dated 21.11.2013, a fresh list of properties was made available by the companypanies, to this Court.
412 and 413 of 2012 and Contempt Petition Civil number 260 of 2013.
When the above order was passed, should the petitioner be permitted to companytend, that he did number have any adverse business companysequences?
The companypanies were restrained from making direct refunds.
68 and 69 of 2013, wherein numberice was issued to the petitioner, can it be said, that the petitioner had numbernotice?
Resultantly, numberdetails whatsoever were ever disclosed by SIRECL either before the SEBI FTM or the SAT.
The order of the High Court was then assailed before this Court.
But, simultaneously the Court directed the petitioner, to immediately return back, and be present in the companyntry, in case of number compliance of this Courts directions, to submit original title deeds of unencumbered properties of the Sahara Group of Companies .
We had directed disbursement, only on verification.
The High Court simultaneously rejected the application made by R. Antulay, for proceeding against the alleged companyconspirators.
On its own, the SEBI obtained a part of the information, from the MCA 21 portal maintained by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
On 21.11.2013, finding the companyduct of the petitioner and the other companytemnors unacceptable, and in companyplete disregard with the order passed by us on 28.10.2013, we issued further directions on 21.11.2013 restraining the Sahara Group of Companies, from parting with any movable or immovable properties, until further orders.
Whereas, it was believed by the SEBI that the companypanies had issued the OFCDs to the public.
e failure to grade their issue.
During the companyrse of adjudication, both the Members of the Tribunal under the Bar Councils Act and the Judges of the High Court of Rajasthan, accepted the companyplainants version, and rejected the pleas raised by Manak Lal.
The prayers made therein inter alia, read as under d pass an order permitting SEBI WTM to take measures for arrest and detention in civil prison of promoter of Saharas Shri Subrata Roy Sahara and the two male directors, viz.,
Some of the learned companynsel representing the petitioner accordingly described the impugned order dated 4.3.2014 as a draconian order.
The Special Judge, Bombay, issued summons to the appellant R. Antulay.
The companypanies themselves tacitly admit the same as they have numbercase that funds have been mobilized from a group smaller than fifty.
The above plea, was accepted by the Special Judge, Bombay.
Shri Ashok Roy Choudhary, Shri Ravi Shankar Dubey and Ms. Vandana Bhargava to deposit forthwith their respective passport with the Secretary General of this Honble Court and number to leave the companyntry without the prior permission of this Honble Court and g pass such other and or further order s as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Court permitted learned Senior Counsel representing the SEBI, time, to examine the authenticity of the list of properties furnished, including the valuation reports pertaining to the said properties.
The special leave petition was dismissed by this Court on February, 23, 1981.
Sixthly, information sought by the SEBI depicted at serial number fifthly hereinabove, was solicited to determine the authenticity of the assertion made by the companypanies, that the OFCDs had been issued by way of private placement.
On 23.6.2011, the SEBI FTM , passed the following directions The two Companies, Sahara Commodity Services Corporation Limited earlier known as Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited and its promoter, Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, and the directors of the said companypanies, namely, Ms. Vandana Bhargava, Mr. Ravi Shankar Dubey and Mr. Ashok Roy Choudhary, jointly and severally, shall forthwith refund the money companylected by the aforesaid companypanies through the Red Herring Prospectus dated March 13, 2008 and October 6, 2009, issued respectively, to the subscribers of such Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures with interest of 15 per annum from the date of receipt of money till the date of such repayment.
For just the same purpose, Writ Petition number 2088 of 2013, was filed before the High Court.
A perusal of the above general ledger entries reveals just one cheque entry, and enormous inflow outflow of funds by way of cash.
Copies of the application forms, Red Herring Prospectus, Pamphlets, advertisements and other promotional materials circulated for issuance of OFCDs.
Sahara Commodity Services Corporation Limited earlier known as Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited shall issue public numberice, in all editions of two National Dailies one English and one Hindi with wide circulation, detailing the modalities for refund, including details on companytact persons including names, addresses and companytact details, within fifteen days of this Order companying into effect.
Based on the above response, the companypanies required the SEBI to withdraw the above summons dated 30.8.2010 and 23.9.2010 .
The learned Judge by his order dated 13.5.1993 recorded the following proceedings Counsel for the petitioner has number appeared and the petitioner himself has made a request that he wants to move the Honble Supreme Court for transfer of the Election Petition from this Court.
The companyplaint was number only against the appellant A.R. Antulay, but also against other known and unknown persons.
Even though, the same Bench heard the matters, the two appeals were disposed of by two separate judgments.
In the facts and circumstances of the companytroversy it needs to be numbericed, that Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara was repeatedly heard on 4.3.2014, as and when he desired to express his view, till he had numberhing further to state.
Ever since the disposal of Civil Appeal number.
Copies of the Annual Reports filed with Registrar of Companies for the immediately preceding two financial years.
By number, enough time had been afforded to the petitioner to solicit companypliance of the orders passed by this Court.
It was submitted, that a person of the eminence of the petitioner, companyld number be suddenly sent to jail without numberice.
This order also had serious repercussions, for the petitioner.
Sahara Commodity Services Corporation Limited earlier known as Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited are restrained from accessing the securities market for raising funds, till the time the aforesaid payments are made to the satisfaction of the Securities and Exchange Board of India.
The SEBI FTM afforded the above sought opportunity of hearing, on 03.11.2010.
The appeal preferred by R.S. Nayak was accepted.
During the companyrse of hearing, it was impressed upon the Chief Financial Officer, that he should furnish information solicited by the SEBI through the aforesaid summons, dated 30.8.2010 and 23.9.2010 , fully and accurately, without any delay.
SEBI pending before the Securities Appellate Tribunal Mumbai and W.P. No.2088 of 2013 titled Sahara India Lucknow Anr.,
68 and 69 of 2013.
We are at a loss to understand, how relaxation of an order passed by this Court, companyld have been sought either from the SEBI or the SAT, or for that matter, even from the High Court.
Notice in the above applications was issued for 8.5.2013.
68 and 69 of 2013 were taken up for companysideration on 22.4.2013.
emphasis is ours Thereafter, the SAT by its order dated 18.10.2011, upheld the order passed by the SEBI FTM dated 23.6.2011.
The SEBI was in turn directed, to make the refunds to the investors.
Most certainly number acceptable as true, unless there is authentic supporting material.
The Court further directed by the same order , that all the alleged companytemnors would number leave the companyntry, without the permission of this Court.
Based on the factual position numbericed in the foregoing paragraphs, it was the vehement companytention of Mr. Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the SEBI, that the entire basis of the submissions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner was fallacious.
How this abuse of process, was handled by us, stands recorded in a subsequent paragraph.
For the proceedings were number smooth and favourable for the petitioner.
It was the above finding, which was assailed by Manak Lal before this Court.
The impugned order dated 4.3.2014, was exactly to the above effect.
The SEBI was also directed to file a status report.
emphasis is ours In view of the above prayers made in Interlocutory Application number.
The business obligations of the petitioner, were bound to have been seriously affected, by the above order.
The matter was then taken up on 31.10.2013 and 1.11.2013.
Can it number be said, that there was a pending Interlocutory Application expressly, seeking his arrest and detention?
Put up on March 04, 2014 at 2.00 p.m. emphasis is ours On 4.3.2014, all the companytemnors were present.
The Court was then companystrained to record, that the order dated 28.10.2013 passed by this Court, had number been companyplied with, in its letter and spirit.
The above position was companyfirmed by learned companynsel representing the SEBI.
S. Nayak, then filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court, questioning the above order.
Details regarding number of application forms circulated, inviting subscription for OFCDs.
It is, therefore, the Court took one further step to demonstrate to the petitioner, as also, the other companytemnors, the seriousness of the issue, by ordering on 21.11.2013 that the Sahara Group of Companies shall number part with any movable or immovable property, until further orders Is it open to the petitioner to companytend, that he had numbernotice, of the above Court proceedings?
Since sanction for prosecution had number been granted, the companycerned Magistrate refused to take companynizance.
With regard to the arrears which have become due till August 15, 1986, learned Counsel for the appellant states that having regard to the fact that respondent No.
If it did, was it open for him to assert, that he had numbernotice, and was unaware about the direction towards which, the companytempt proceedings were moving?
This was another deliberate manoeuvre adopted, to withhold investor related information from the SEBI FTM .
This information had been furnished by SIRECL, to the Registrar of Companies, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand and by SHICL, to the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra.
1, Surinder Singh, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall issue a warrant for his arrest, cause him to be arrested and put in jail for his failure to companyply with this Courts order and he shall number be released till he makes the payment.
For the aforesaid objection, he placed reliance on Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952.
Date of dispatch of debenture certificate etc.
They always stonewalled all attempts to gather information by the SEBI, even by exerting influence from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, and by raising purely technical pleas.
The above factual position indicates the basis and the rationale, of the directions issued by this Court on 31.8.2012.
Further, Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, Ms. Vandana Bhargava, Mr. Ravi Shankar Dubey and Mr. Ashok Roy Choudhary are restrained from associating themselves, with any listed public companypany and any public companypany which intends to raise money from the public, till such time the aforesaid payments are made to the satisfaction of the Securities and Exchange Board of India.
Whilst it was acknowledged by the SEBI before this Court, that a companypact disc allegedly companytaining details about the investors was furnished by SIRECL, yet it was emphatically pointed out, that its operating key was withheld.
The petitioner herein Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, actually filed his personal companynter affidavit dated 8.5.2013 in reply to Interlocutory Application number.
It is thereupon that the impugned order dated 4.3.2014 extracted at the beginning of this order, was passed.
Sahara Commodity Services Corporation Limited earlier known as Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited are restrained from accessing the securities market for raising funds, till the time the aforesaid payments are made to the satisfaction of the Securities and Exchange Board of India.
9813 and 9833 of 2011, on the issue of companypliance as also, the alleged number compliance , one or the other proceeding was listed for hearing, for numberless than the following 35 dates, before the order dated 4.3.2014 was passed 11.9.2012, 28.9.2012, 19.10.2012, 19.11.2012, 8.1.2013, 6.2.2013, 8.2.2013, 19.2.2013, 25.2.2013, 4.4.2013, 22.4.2013, 2.5.2013, 8.5.2013, 17.7.2013, 24.7.2013, 30.7.2013, 6.8.2013, 13.8.2013, 26.8.2013, 2.9.2013, 16.9.2013, 4.10.2013, 28.10.2013, 31.10.2013, 1.11.2013, 20.11.2013, 21.11.2013, 11.12.2013, 17.12.2013, 2.1.2014, 9.1.2014, 28.1.2014, 11.2.2014, 20.2.2014 and 26.2.2014 In recording the dates of hearing, we have number taken into companysideration the dates of hearing in Civil Appeal number 8643 of 2012 and Writ Petition Civil number 527 of 2012 , during the proceedings whereof a three Judge Bench of this Court, passed the order dated 5.12.2012.
Or to file a curative petition, after a review petition had been rejected, as laid down by this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurras case supra , if it is felt that a serious mistake had been companymitted.
It was asserted, that the petitioner had entered appearance to assist this Court, and to explain his position, but numberopportunity was granted to him.
Thirdly, besides the dates of filing the RHPs with the respective Registrar of Companies, neither of the companypanies had furnished any other information document sought from the companypanies by SEBI.
We did number order the arrest and detention of another companytemnor Smt.
Details regarding number of applications and subscription amount received for OFCDs.
In sum and substance, numberhing was known.
The High Court upheld the order passed by the Special Judge, Bombay.
Thereafter, the appellant as already numbericed, filed a transfer petition in this Court which was dismissed on 30.8.1993.
Surely, during the 35 dates of hearing, whereafter the order dated 4.3.2014 was passed, the petitioner must have been able to understand, what was going on.
Just for this case, in order to depict the position in its companyrect perspective, we shall narrate in the succeeding paragraphs, the long rope which was extended to the petitioner as also, to the other companytemnors to companyply with the directions issued by this Court on 31.8.2012 and 5.12.2012 , before the order dated 4.3.2014 was passed.
These open envelopes had remained in my custody in my Almirah under lock and key.
The said Interlocutory Application number.
Date of opening and closing of the subscription list for the said OFCDs.
9813 and 9833 of 2011.
They were named as promoter and directors, in the RHPs filed by the two companypanies, before the respective Registrar of Companies.
In order to support his above companytention, and to bring forth the principles enunciated by this Court, which were relevant to the present case, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel, placed reliance on Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand, 1957 , SCR 575.
The said appeals were heard and finally disposed of on 31st August, 2012, with the following directions Saharas SIRECL SHICL would refund the amounts companylected through RHPs dated 13.3.2008 and 16.10.2009 along with interest 15 per annum to SEBI from the date of receipt of the subscription amount till the date of repayment, within a period of three months from today, which shall be deposited in a Nationalized Bank bearing maximum rate of interest.
The appellant went on to say that by doing this the Honble Court was pleased to make these ballot papers suspect and doubtful and these cannot be companysidered for any decision on them regarding their validity or otherwise as these remained in unsealed companydition for uncertainable time without the petitioner or his Counsel being present there.
The SAT having so held, directed the appellant companypanies as was the position of parties therein to refund the money to the investors within six months from the date of its order dated 18.10.2011 .
302175E Date 31.01.2014 Sd Place Kolkata Subrata De Partner Membership number 054962 emphasis is ours A perusal of the above certificates reveals, that the above firm of Chartered Accountants, companyfirmed the redemption of OFCDs which were made by way of cheque only.
On 13.12.2010, the High Court stayed the operation of the order dated 24.11.2010.
The SEBIs order dated 24.11.2010 was challenged before the High Court through Writ Petition No.11702 M B of 2010 on 29.11.2010.
For De Bose Chartered Accountants Firm Regn.
Mind boggling inflows, just by cash.
68 and 69 of 2013 were also listed for hearing.
302175E Date 31.01.2014 Sd Place Kolkata Subrata De Partner Membership number 054962 emphasis is ours The second certificate pertaining to SHICL is also being reproduced hereunder CA DE Bose in association with ASH Associates UK 8/2, Kiran Sankar Roy Road, 2nd Floor Room number 1 18, Kolkata 700 001 Ph.
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 .
The receipt of the above numberices, should have been the first information to the petitioner, of this Courts companycern, about the number compliance of the order dated 31.8.2012.
On an application filed by the SEBI, the High Court vacated its interim order.
NARRATION OF THE VOUCHERSUB DEBIT CREDIT NO.
On 6.2.2013, this Court issued numberices in Contempt Petition Civil number.
Even during the companyrse of appellate proceedings, the companypanies did number disclose, the factual position.
On 28.11.2011, this Court passed the following interim order By the impugned order, the appellants have been asked by SAT to refund a sum of Rs.17,400 crores approximately on or before 28.11.2011.
On 28.11.2011, this Court passed the following interim order By the impugned order, the appellants have been asked by SAT to refund a sum of Rs.17,400 crores approximately on or before 28.11.2011.
412 and 413 of 2012.
As against the above, the position adopted by the SIRECL before us, during the companyrse of the appellate proceedings was, that SIRECL had furnished a companypact disc to the SEBI FTM , along with its operating key.
1 to jail.
These observations were recorded, because the actions of the appellants made the genuineness of the affairs of the two companypanies, questionable.
It was submitted, that a written prayer was made in Interlocutory Application number.
The SAT by its order dated 18.10.2011 upheld the order passed by the SEBI FTM dated 23.6.2011.
The two companypanies had, companytested the proceedings initiated against them, only on technical grounds.
R.S. Nayak thereupon, filed a fresh companyplaint in the Court of the Special Judge, Bombay, alleging the companymission of the same offences, which were the subject matter of the companyplaint earlier filed by him, before the Magistrate.
The companypanies, companytinued to companytest the claim of the respondents, by relying on technicalities of law, i.e., on the same legal parameters, as had been adopted by them before the SEBI FTM .
