Press Note from Sahara’s Lawyer Shri Gautam Awasthi

Rupees 40,000 Crores dues issue is wild imagination of media

Sahara’s Rs. 12,000 Crores are already with SEBI

1. Sahara says that report of Due amount of Rs 40,000 Cr is incorrect, since such amount or such observation was never made during the course of hearing either by the Counsel appearing for SEBI or by the Hon’ble Court or any other Counsel. The figure of Rs. 40000 Cr. is imaginary and same amounts to irresponsible reporting of Court proceedings. There is no pleading or any document in the Court record which mentioned the figure of Rs. 40000 Cr. The order dictated in the open Court on 13.03.2015 also does not bear this figure and therefore, these amounts to incorrect reporting of Court proceedings which further dented the image of Mr. Roy and two directors in the public eye.

2.In fact, the Court very fairly stated that amount payable was subject to verification and after verification all excess amount would be refunded Back to Sahara.

3.There is no observation pertaining to the reporting of one month to save group by the Hon’ble Court, same is misconceived.

As a matter of fact, the Hon’ble Court observed during the proceeding to Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate that the outhouse facility along with secretarial staff etc. can be extended even up to “two months” provided a concrete proposal is put forward as far as the satisfaction of the bail bond of rest of the amount of about 6000 Cr. is concerned. Please note that Sahara’s two companies are asked to provide proposal for complying with the remaining amount out of bail amount of Rs. 5,000 Cr cash and Rs. 5,000 Cr. as bank guarantee and not for any imagery figure of Rs. 40,000 Cr. The period of 2 month was observed by the Hon’ble Court when Mr. Sibal requested for 8 weeks outhouse facility to finalize the transaction to satisfy the bail bond amount of Rs. 10,000 Cr. as ordered by the Hon’ble Court on 26.03.2014.

Therefore, the figure of 4 weeks as reported in the article is incorrect since Mr. Sibal sought 8 weeks’ time and not 4 weeks. Same is clarified to that extent.

4.The news represented that an ultimatum was given whereas the order passed by the Hon’ble Court makes it clear that the Hon’ble Court accepted the request of not appointing a Receiver since Mr. Sibal stated that a serious attempt has been made for finalizing a deal of which the documents will be provided to the Amicus Curiae and the Counsel for SEBI. This acceptance of the request was also noted in the order dated 13.03.2015. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sibal stated that the situation of appointment of a Receiver may not arise if an opportunity is given. There is nothing mentioned in the order passed on 13.03.2015 about any ultimatum and therefore same amounts to incorrect reporting and same is clarified to that extent.

5.The Hon’ble Court extended the facility of communication up to 5 hours a day to Mr. Roy and two directors of Sahara’s two companies, inside the jail premises which was not reported in the article. Further, jail authorities were also directed to facilitate Mr. Roy and two directors with two laptops for functioning which was also not reported in the article.

6.During the hearing, SEBI was directed to file an affidavit clarifying its stand when a letter was indicated to the Hon’ble Court by Mr. Sibal that a communication was issued to HDFC Bank by SEBI on 19.12.2013 that the order dated 21.11.2013 only applies to specific movable and immovable properties in a particular application, therefore, RBI has no cause of action to state that there was a violation by Sahara India Financial Corporation Limited of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 21.11.2013 and 04.06.2014.

7.Further, Mr. Sibal fairly stated during hearing that about Rs. 12,000 Cr. stands deposited with SEBI as on date out of which barely anything was disbursed by SEBI. The Hon’ble Court also made it clear that it will be open to argue on that issue at a later stage. However, the article in the front page of the newspaper reported that only Rs. 5,120 Cr. was deposited whereas nearly Rs. 12,000 Cr. stands deposited with SEBI as on date. Same is clarified to that extent.

Manohar Parrikar is Disturbed at Subrata Roy's long incarceration

said Manohar Parrikar Defence Minister of India and then Chief Minister of Goa, while speaking at the concluding session of the 16th All India whips conference in Goa

Is Really Big Companies Like Sahara, DLF are Culprit

Everyone loves it when a regulator acts tough against large corporations. So when the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) banned DLF Ltd and six senior officials, including its chairman and founder, it expectedly won plaudits. Shekhar Gupta, a senior journalist, tweeted, “Sahara, now DLF, Sebi stature grows…”

However, Sebi’s conduct in the DLF case has been vastly different compared with its handling of Sahara. It took more than seven years to pass its judgement. During this time, the original complainant against DLF, K.K. Sinha, was forced to take Sebi to court alleging “deliberate inaction”. Besides, the Delhi high court castigated the regulator on more than one occasion for dragging its feet on the case.

 And while many have been enamoured by the ‘housewives’ plot allegedly used by DLF to hide its association with some subsidiaries, as shown in Sebi’s order, the truth is that Sinha informed the Delhi high court about this way back in September 2008.

 For some perspective, Sinha first sent a complaint directly to Sebi, alleging that DLF hadn’t disclosed an ongoing litigation between him and a DLF subsidiary in its initial public offering (IPO) prospectus. Sebi’s order suggests that this complaint was forwarded to DLF for its response. The developer, obviously, denied the allegations, saying that the said company wasn’t a subsidiary.

 Because of Sebi’s inaction at the time, Sinha filed a writ petition before the Delhi high court in 2007. Some of Sebi’s arguments during the hearing of this case are worth noting. Sebi objected that since the petitioner was not an investor in the securities market, he had no locus standi to file the petition. It also contended that since the subsidiary company in question was an unlisted company, it wasn’t amenable to the Sebi regulations and guidelines. Note that in the Sahara case, Sebi took the exact opposite stand, which is that it acted against an unlisted company.

Sebi didn’t exactly cover itself with glory with those statements, and the high court judge observed, “In the instant case, as the facts reveal, Sebi was inexplicably slow in reacting to the petitioner’s complaints. Its subsequent failure to initiate further steps to investigate the transaction in question was also not consistent with its statutory obligation.” In his judgement in April 2010, the judge directed Sebi to undertake an investigation into the complaints made by Sinha.

Although it dithered on the DLF case, Sebi has done well to bring closure to the case (although, of course, it will now be fought at the Securities Appellate Tribunal and perhaps, even the Supreme Court). But it should go further and look at the role of investment bankers and other related issues. To stop at only Sinha’s complaint will be quite an inadequate response, considering all that its investigations have unearthed thus far.

For more info : http://www.livemint.com/Money/HEzLkPp0o1LgcEaUNLlHML/Sebi-Reluctant-hero-in-the-DLF-case.html

Sahara Case Proceeding : Gautam Awasthi Thanked Supremecourt

Statement of Advocate Gautam Awasthi on yesterday’s Supreme Court Proceedings

               

Today, we are extremely thankful to our Hon’ble Judges who have opened the path after 5 months for Saharasree to reintroduce him and his presence in the work sphere. He never could get a chance to talk to anybody. Here in the jail, Subrata Roy Sahara used to get only 35 minutes and additional few calls at times in a week.

Actually from today only the business is starting to fulfill the direction of Hon’ble Court though these are all double payments.

So, on 22nd July, 2014, we got the permission for mortgage and sale of overseas assets and today on 1st August, 2014, we are going to get the support of all kinds of communications round the clock with office staff and technical support.

Since all the assets, every Rupee, every inch of all immovable properties, every gram of movable properties were under absolute embargo no payment in compliance of order dated 26th March, 2014 could have been made. Immediately after lifting of embargo on Bank account etc. things have started improving from beginning of June and consequently a substantial part of the cash payment of Rs.5000 crores could be deposited.