The Securities Appellate Tribunal today dismissed an appeal by two Sahara group firms against Sebi in the high-profile case involving refund of about Rs 24,000 crore with interest to about three crore investors.
Sahara firms in their appeal had sought the tribunal's intervention in refund of investors' money and had accused the market regulator Sebi of wrongly charging them of non- compliance with a Supreme Court order in this regard.
The tribunal, however, said that any further direction in the case can be sought for and granted by the Supreme Court alone and dismissed the appeal.
"We, therefore, find the appeal premature as well as non-maintainable. Dismissed," the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) said in its order passed today.
Passing the order on the appeal filed on November 27, SAT observed that "a contempt petition filed by the respondent Board (Securities and Exchange Board of India) and a review petition filed by the appellants (Sahara group firms) against the order dated August 31, 2012 are already pending before Supreme Court."
The apex court had asked Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Ltd (SHICL) to refund an estimated Rs 24,000 crore with an annual interest of 15 per cent, while Sebi was directed to facilitate the refund of this money to about three crore bondholders of the two firms.
The Supreme Court had asked these companies to furnish the documents related to these investors to Sebi within 10 days and refund the money within three months, failing which the regulator was asked to freeze the accounts and attach properties of the two firms.
Sebi issued a letter to the two companies on November 1, 2012 asking them to furnish details of all bank accounts and properties, as they "failed to furnish the documents to the Board within the stipulated time and thereby violated the direction of the Supreme Court".
In the appeal before SAT, the Sahara companies said that Sebi "has deliberately refused to accept the documents/ information and wrongly proceeded on the basis that the appellants are in non-compliance of the directions in the said judgment of the Supreme Court".
The two firms