Apex court rejects Subrata Roy’s plea for house arrest

PTI New Delhi | Updated on March 13, 2018 Published on June 04, 2014

The apex court has, however, modified its earlier order and permitted Sahara to sell its immovable properties situated in nine cities in India.

Lifts curbs on sale of assets

In a setback to Sahara chief Subrata Roy, who has been in jail for the last three months, the Supreme Court today dismissed his plea to be put under house arrest but allowed the group to sell properties to mobilise Rs 5,000 crore in cash and an equal amount in bank guarantee for securing his release.

“The prayer for shifting the contemnor outside the jail is dismissed,” a bench of justices T S Thakur and A K Sikri said while reading the operative parts of the judgement that dealt with the modifications of the earlier order.

The Sahara chief, who has been in Delhi’s Tihar jail since March 4, was earlier directed by the apex court to pay Rs 5,000 crore in cash and furnish a bank guarantee of Rs 5,000 crore as pre-condition for his release.

Sahara group has been given a go-ahead to sell immovable properties in nine cities here, the bench said in its verdict today and made it clear that they will not be sold below the circle rate and buyers should not be “connected or related” to the group.

The sale proceeds will be deposited in a separate bank account, maintained by market regulator SEBI, which, in turn, will release the title deeds of the properties in favour of the purchasers, it said.

The bench also lifted the curb put on encashment of Sahara group’s fixed deposits and bonds and said that they will also be kept by the market regulator.

Dealing with the issue of sale of equities held by Sahara group in three offshore hotels, the bench said it is keeping the issue open as the group has to file an affidavit relating to its communication with the Bank of China, which had lent it money.

The bench, which allowed Sahara group to mortgage its properties in Aamby valley in Pune for arranging the bank guarantee, said the guarantee, to be furnished, either be given from a nationalised or a scheduled bank. It said the bank guarantee of a cooperative bank will not “suffice”.

The bench rejected the fresh proposal of Sahara group about the payment schedule under which the group said it would like to deposit Rs 3,000 crore cash in five days and another Rs 2,000 crore in cash in the next 30 days thereafter.

The group would be furnishing a bank guarantee for the rest of the Rs 5,000 crore in 60 days after selling its equities in hotels, one in London and two in New York, it said.

The bench referred the matter to a larger three-judge bench which will be constituted by Chief Justice R M Lodha.

It, meanwhile, appointed senior advocate F S Nariman as an amicus curiae to assist the court in the case and said he will be given Rs 1.10 lakh fees per hearing and the money shall be paid by SEBI, which, in turn, will deduct it from the account of the Sahara group.

The court said if Nariman accepts the proposal for appointment as amicus curiae, he will be at liberty to take the help of junior lawyers and they will be given Rs 10,000 each per hearing.

The bench, which was constituted after Justice J S Kehar had recused himself, had reserved the judgement on May 29 after hearing arguments from the counsel of Sahara Group and the SEBI on the fresh plea of Roy.

Immediately after the judgement was pronounced, advocates appearing for Sahara, Keshav Mohan and Gaurav Kejriwal, submitted that the permission to sell foreign properties was vital as the group was dependent on them for raising the money in a fast manner.

However, the bench said the issue can be raised before the larger bench.

The court also said the faster way for Sahara to reach the target was to utilise the money already lying in the bank.

Senior advocate S Ganesh, also appearing for Roy, made an oral plea that the court should consider granting five days of relief like ‘parole’ to the Sahara chief to meet his 92-year-old ailing mother who is in a bad shape.

The bench said to consider such plea a formal application has to be filed as it would require verification of the facts considering the nature of matter.

Published on June 04, 2014
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor