Supreme Court rejects Sahara's proposal, says its unhappy

Written by Press Trust of India | New Delhi | Updated: Mar 5 2014, 03:56am hrs
RoyThe bench reminded the counsel appearing for Sahara about all its previous orders including the August 31, 2012 judgement
Sahara Group's fresh proposal to bail out its Chief Subrata Roy did not go down well with the Supreme Court which rejected it saying the company failed to come out with any concrete proposal.

"We are not happy with the proposal. No concrete proposal has come up so far. We are not accepting this proposal. There is no bank guarantee. All of them except Vandana Bhargava will be in custody in Delhi," a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar said before retiring to the chambers for writing the detailed order and directions.

The bench expressed anguish that identical things have been said repeatedly and the Saharas even went to the extend of filing "false sworn affidavits" and "contradicting statements" before the top court of the country.

"You gave false affidavits before the Supreme Court. The wrong sworn affidavit was filed before the Supreme Court. You have been giving contradicting statements even before the Supreme Court.

"We are sorry to say that even false and inconsistent affidavits have been filed in the Supreme court and even in the contempt proceedings. At every stage, false affidavits have been filed," the bench said.

When Roy's counsel Ram Jethmalani said the Sahara chief has been brought to the court and "the majesty of law has been restored and the dignity of the court is well maintained" now, the bench wanted to know from the Uttar Pradesh Police about the compliance of its February 26 order issuing non-bailable arrest warrant against him.

Convinced that all the contemnors--Roy, three Directors Ravi Shankar Dubey, Ashok Roy Choudhary and Vandana Bhargava --were present in the court, the bench allowed the Sahara chief to make his statement.

"I am unconditionally apologising for not being present on February 26. Please accept my apology. I have faith in you," Roy told the bench which said "we accept your apology".

As Jethmalani wanted to say something about the new proposal, he was interrupted by another senior advocate C A Sundaram, also appearing for Saharas.

Jethmalani gave way to Sundaram to elaborate in detail about the fresh proposal which boomeranged with the bench shooting off several questions.

"What is this proposal We were wondering why you are casting responsibilty on SEBI.

"We are not interested in selling your property. You have been telling us for two years. It is your headache. You should have done it. Our judgement is very clear. In your proposal, there are so many ifs and buts. We are not going to sell it (properties). What is the purpose of our judgement Do it whatever you want. You can generate lot of loan. Sell your property or whatever you want," the bench said when the proposal about the selling of property was put forward.

"We tried our best and we gave you time repeatedly. For one reason or other you delayed and you never allowed us to proceed. You do whatever you like. Why should you want court's permission for selling the properties You sell it yourself.

"This (proposal) we are hearing for last one and half years. It is continuing since May 2012 what can we do.

"You and your companies have so much of money with you, then why don't you give it," the bench further said.

The bench reminded the counsel appearing for Sahara about all its previous orders including the August 31, 2012 judgement and subsequent order of another bench of three judges which the Group has not complied with and made the refund of Rs 20,000 crore to the investors.

"You have sought our indulgences but you did not comply with our orders. You said go to hell. Now you are here with folded your hands, what can we do.

"You tell us when you will pay. SEBI can't sell. They don't have the manpower. You sell the property of Rs 28,000 crore and pay. You had time since August 31, 2012. We can't accpet this proposal. You have been telling about it for one and half years", the bench said.

"All the money that has to be paid is to be paid and the rest will go to the government of India. The amount must go to the RBI," the bench said.