- Setback for Bharti Airtel, Reliance Communications, Vodafone as Supreme Court allows account audit by CAGSahara proposes to pay Rs 2,500 cr in 3 days for Roy’s releaseSupreme Court declines to block drug ruling in patent caseGoa mining ban lifted, Supreme Court allows annual cap of 20 mn tonnes of iron ore excavation
The Supreme Court today reserved its order on Sahara Chief Subrata Roy's petition challenging its decision to send him to jail in the case relating to non- refund of more than Rs. 20,000 crore of investors money.
A bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar also agreed to consider Sahara's proposal for paying Rs 10,000 crore for getting bail to its chief Subrata Roy and two directors who are in Tihar jail in judicial custody since March 4.
In its new proposal placed today, Sahara group assured the court that it will pay Rs 3,000 crore within three-four working days and another Rs 2,000 crore in cash by May 30.
It also submitted that they would furnish a bank guarantee of another Rs 5,000 crore on or before June 20.
The apex court had earlier imposed a condition that Roy will be freed on bail only if he pays Rs 10,000 crore out of which Rs 5,000 crore has to be in bank guarantee and rest Rs 5,000 crore in cash.
Roy and the other two directors of the Group have been in judicial custody since March 4 for not abiding by the apex court's order for depositing Rs 20,000 crore of investors money with SEBI.
Sahara group submitted that Roy be released forthwith to facilitate negotiations with people for the purpose of raising money to comply with the apex court's order. It also pleaded that its bank accounts be defreezed which was frozen by the court on November 21 last year.
In the meantime, senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for SEBI raised question on the account book of Sahara different firms, an argument which was strongly opposed by Sahara.
65-year-old Roy had earlier submitted that the apex court's order for detaining him for not paying over Rs 20,000 of investors' money with SEBI was illegal and unconstitutional and sought quashing of the order.