the same when it said: “...As regards the instalments to be deposited with Sebi as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Sahara has filed interim application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia praying that Sahara be permitted to furnish security through a credible financial institution instead and in place of the payment of the balance instalments, since Sahara has already redeemed significant number of OFCD holders and any further payments to Sebi would amount to double payment. The said interim application is pending and is likely to come up next week.”
In its defence Sahara said: “Sebi's order for attachment of the assets is based on old facts and details of assets as of January, 2012. Since then, facts have changed in view of redemptions made by Sahara from time to time. This fact of redemption was known to Sebi. Hence, the order does not take into account the changed facts and circumstances.” According to the company, as per the SC's order, the liability to refund the money lies with SIRECL and SHICL. Hence, attachment of assets of individuals by Sebi is incorrect. It said that not only has the company paid Sebi amounts much higher than the outstanding liabilities of the two companies, “the fact also remains in the whole affair Sahara is genuinely concerned for investors”.