TT Epaper
The Telegraph
TT Photogallery
 
IN TODAY'S PAPER
WEEKLY FEATURES
CITIES AND REGIONS
ARCHIVES
Since 1st March, 1999
 
THE TELEGRAPH
 
 
CIMA Gallary
Email This Page
Apex court to hear Sahara plea against Sebi
Awaiting relief

Mumbai, June 27: The Supreme Court will hear on July 4 a plea filed by a company belonging to the Sahara group that challenges a Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) order directing it to return money collected from investors through a scheme along with a 15 per cent interest.

A vacation bench of the apex court, comprising justices P. Sathasivam and A.K. Patnaik, decided to hear the matter after Sahara India Real Estate Corp today told the bench of its plea filed with the apex court registry.

The Sahara group firm wanted the court to direct Sebi to remove its June 23 order from its website and restrain the market regulator and its officials from publicising the order, which is under challenge.

The counsel appearing for Sahara group firm said his client wanted Sebi to expunge the parts of the order directing it to return money with interest to the investors as it had created panic among them.

Last week, Sebi had asked two Sahara group companies and its promoter and directors to refund the money collected by them through optionally fully convertible debentures (OFCDs) by paying a 15 per cent interest from the date of receipt of money till the date of their repayment. It also restrained the two companies from accessing the securities market for raising funds.

The market regulator said that effect to its order would not be given as the Supreme Court had in an order asked Sebi to expeditiously hear and decide the case so that the court could pass suitable orders. Sebi said the order would be given effect to only subject to the directions of the Supreme Court. However, the Sahara group criticised Sebi for making the order public.

“For a regulator where the matter is sub-judice, media trial is not warranted and not expected from Sebi as is being done in this case. It was expected to simply place the order before the Supreme Court and maintain the sanctity of the order passed by the Supreme Court,” it had said in a statement on Friday.

Top
Email This Page
 
 
" "
" "