New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Tuesday said more than 10 years’ have passed and the Sahara Group has not complied with court’s order and made it clear that no embargo exists on the group to sell its properties for depositing around Rs 10,000 crore in SEBI-Sahara refund account for returning investors' money. The apex court said there is a decree on the Sahara Group that “you have to deposit Rs 25,000 crore, which you have not deposited, despite enough opportunities”.
A three-judge bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said more than 10 years have passed and the Sahara Group has not complied with the order of the court. "SEBI is seeking around Rs 10,000 crore. You need to deposit it. We want a distinct plan, so that the property can be sold in a transparent manner. We will rope in SEBI also in this exercise," said the bench, also comprising justices M M Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Sahara Group, said the company was not given the opportunity to sell its properties. The bench said that there is no embargo on the group in selling its properties for depositing the remaining Rs 10,000 crore out of Rs 25,000 crore ordered by the court. Sibal said no one came forward or is coming forward to purchase the properties as there was embargo on selling them. The bench said that it is not correct to say that you were not given fair chances to sell the properties. “You were given enough chances by this court to sell your properties," the bench said. Senior advocate Pratap Venugopal, representing SEBI, contended before the bench that not all properties are unencumbered.
The apex court said that the properties should not be sold below the circle rate and if it is to be sold below the circle rate, then prior permission of the court is to be sought.
The apex court made it clear to the Sahara Group that SEBI is seeking around Rs 10,000 crore and it should deposit it, and sought a clear plan from the group. “So that the property can be sold in a transparent manner. We will rope in SEBI also in this exercise," said the bench. Venugopal said there is complete ambiguity on when the company would pay the balance amount.