Supreme Court discarded Sahara’s appeal to have a review on the refund – case. Supreme Court finding no valuable reasons for a review, dismissed the appeal.

Supreme Court discards Sahara’s appeal

Sahara’s appeal, against the SC verdict which orders Sahara firms to refund nearly Rs.25,000 Cr to its investors, was turned down by the Supreme Court of India.

Two subsidiary firms of Sahara- Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Ltd (SHICL) as well as Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd (SIRECL) were fined Rs.24000 Cr as they were found guilty of amassing investments. The SC had found that many of the investors’ details lacked clarity.

Being suspicious over their investors’ details the SC had asked the Sahara- firms to pay the fine. Later Sahara claimed that they had already repaid their investors.

In 2012 December, SC had granted more time to the Sahara firms to pay off. As per the SC’s December order the Sahara firms were to pay the fine in three installments. After paying Rs.5,120 Cr as the first installment, they had to pay another Rs.20,000 Cr in two installments in January and February.

(Subrata Roy of Sahara- in a press meeting ) Supreme Court refuses to heed Sahara’s plea in January.

Chief Justice Altamas Kabir- headed SC bench had directed Sahara firms to deposit Rs.10,000 Cr, as the first installment, by the first week of January, 2013. As per the SC order Sahara had to pay the second installment of Rs.10,000 in the first week of February.

SC had even empowered the market regulator SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) to seize the properties of Sahara, in case if they do not comply with the order.

Discarding the review- appeal by Sahara, Supreme Court stated that the Court has gone through the appeal very well and there is no substantial or grounds for admitting their appeal.

The Supreme Court Order dated January – 8, stated that the Court was unable to find any inconsistency in the views expressed by the judges. The Court further stated that the Court had studied the records placed before them. The court added that the records were meticulously examined and analyzed and that it found no grounds for the appeal to be considered.