Investor money: Sahara Group seeks review of Supreme Court verdict

The Sahara group on Friday moved the Supreme Court, seeking the review of its August 31 verdict directing the company to return Rs 17,400 crore to investors with 15 per cent interest that it had mopped up through Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCDs) in 2008 and 2009.

The review petition, filed by Sahara's real estate companies SIRECL and SHICL, reiterated the group's commitment to refund the investors' money as directed by the court.

It added that the group was seeking the verdict's review to uphold its image both in public eyes and the business world, nationally and internationally.

The apex court by its August 31 verdict had directed the Sahara group's real estate companies SIRECL and SHICL to return with a 15-per cent interest the Rs 17,400 crore ($3.5 billion) it had mopped up as debentures from investors in 2008 and 2009.

The court had said the refund would be done "within a period of three months from today, which shall be deposited in a Nationalized Bank bearing maximum rate of interest."

The court had appointed former judge of apex court Justice B.N. Agarwal to "oversee whether directions issued by this Court are properly and effectively complied with by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (WTM) from the date of this order."

Justice Agarwal, the order had said, would also oversee all the steps adopted by Sebi (WTM) and other officials for the effective and proper implementation of the directions issued by this Court.

While questioning the credentials of the complainant on whose complaint market regulator Sebi had acted, the review petition said that all its investors were genuine.

Sahara has sought the hearing of its review petition in open court.

Seeking the review of the apex court verdict on several counts, the review partition said that the entire case was decided on facts and the question of law about the powers of Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) that had upheld the marker regulator's order to refund the investors money remained unaddressed.

Pointing to an earlier occasion when its two unlisted companies mopped up money from the market without prior nod of the market regulator, the review petition said that it was under the impression that it could take the OFCD route without approaching the market regulator.

The review petition has pleaded for removing all the adverse observations used against the company in the judgment describing its conduct as the 'defiant posture', 'brazen', and the 'brash and audacious manner'.

The review petition contended that if in pursuance of its legal contest, it questions the jurisdiction of a legal authority then it could not be painted with these expressions.