Showing posts with label SC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SC. Show all posts

Thursday, 17 April 2014

SAHARA SEBI: IMAGINE !

Let’s Imagine! Imagine Charlie Chaplin not being the legendary comedian that he was. Or Arnold Swarzeneger not the action icon we all know him as. Imagine Sachin Tendulkar not being the celebrated cricketer but a regular 9 to 5 school teacher or if electricity was never invented. What would it be like if Newton had never discovered the Law of Gravity or Einstein had not made those elaborate inventions?  What if Elvis continued driving trucks or Satyajit Ray wasn’t an illustrious story teller? Difficult and rather unfamiliar and absurd hypothesis! Would these people be still famous, brilliant and celebrated if they were not in their chosen professions? What would have our lives been like in the absence of these people or their world changing contributions to humanity? The answer can only be left to one’s imagination and with no certainty can anyone claim that they be who they are today or what would our existence been like, if these men were not true to their calling.

Now for a moment, let’s imagine a bit further. Would Sahara India have avoided the existential crisis, they are in today, had they not chosen to provide a sound, secure & lawful financial structure to a stratum of the society who has always stood ignored amongst the tall claims of social and economic development? What would the lives and future of these millions of depositors would have been like if they didn’t have a secure medium to invest and save and flourish? What would the future of the children growing in these millions of households have hold? Would they be educated? Would there be employment for the unemployed or the less skilled or the poor? Would there have been economic empowerment for the have nots who do not have the means or the sanction to even hold a bank account or a legitimate Id? Would the chief of Sahara India, Subrata Roy, have saved himself the witch hunt by a National Regulator or avoided jail had he chosen to create a lush empire and focused on serving himself rather than serving the people? Such a swarm of hypotheticals starting with just one simple question, “Imagine?”

Sadly, there are no simple answers. Only simple questions. The answers are complex, unfathomable and lead down to a road of nefarious possible motives, juxtapositions & outcomes. SEBI’s motives juxtaposed with the Court’s senseless brickbat blows on the Sahara Chief only adds insult to the common man’s understanding of productive regulation and fair justice. Even more dangerously, the imagination of SEBI and the Courts have taken a turn for the worse and seem to be more heavily invested in feeding their own egos, their illogic and mindless banter rather than using that imagination to serve and secure.

Currently, SEBI has been claiming that investor accounts provided by Sahara are fictitious and the regulator’s independent verification has failed to make any headway. SEBI so far has been able to repay less than 1 crore rupees to OFCD investors even though  its been 18 months since Sahara deposited 5,120 crore rupees with the market watchdog. Interestingly, in 2008, Sahara had paid back around 4 crore depositors under strict supervision of Reserve Bank of India. The central bank, then, did not stumble upon any such fictitious account and the OFCD issue had almost same set of investors. So is SEBI imagining these investors as fictitious or is it disguising its incompetence. To further add to the comedy of errors, the Supreme Court has expressed its displeasure over SEBI’s tardy pace in verifying these investor accounts in Sahara’s OFCD issue. I can only imagine the embarrassment the courts must be facing at the hands of the regulator’s malfunction. And who is paying the price for all this mockery. The innocent, the lawful and the poor!

Let’s tax our imagination one more time and explore another set premise. What if Sahara is innocent? What if the Sahara supremo is being wrongfully accused and punished? Is SEBI acting in the best interest of the depositors or is it blinded by its punitive sense of dominion? What would it be like if SEBI realized and acknowledged that these investors in question are for real? What would it be like if there was no Sahara to begin with? Are these questions that have real and heavy implications or are they just plain rhetoric?

The answers can only be left to unfold as time and events pass by. The outcomes would be real and the consequences can either set unhealthy & dire precedents or can pave way to a truthful, mindful and fair premise. Just IMAGINE..!!!


Monday, 24 March 2014

VIEW & COUNTER-VIEW SAHARA-SEBI STANDOFF

The Supreme Court is set to hear Sahara chief Subrata Roy’s petition on Tuesday. Sahara has raised some points over its legal battle with stock market regulator Sebi


    Sahara says it has already paid 93% of the investors. Per investor average deposit is of 8,400. Hence, it can be repaid in cash as per law 
    In last 17 months, Sebi repaid only 1 cr and is holding 5619 cr (including interest), argues Sahara 
    No verification process has been started by Sebi in the last 17 months, disobeying court’s August 31, 2012 order, the company says 
    Sahara offered guarantee of the entire amount through bank trustee security; but when it was rejected, the company says it offered irrevocable bank guarantee. This has not been accepted 
    At the heart of the matter lies Sebi’s demand, under directions of the Supreme Court, of an additional 20,000 crore along with 15% interest to investors 
    The company says Sebi has alleged that Sahara’s investors are fictitious and untraceable 

    Sahara says that in 2008, it had repaid around 4 crore depositors under supervision of the Reserve Bank of India 
    The company says in response to Sebi’s assertion that many of the 20,000 letters to depositors didn’t elicit a response, Sahara had submitted affidavits and KYC documents confirming their existence 
    Sahara says it remains Sebi’s responsibility to ascertain the authenticity of its claim that it has repaid most of their money 

    If Sebi continues to insist that investors do not exist, then, by the same logic, the regulating body — born out of the specific mandate of protecting investors — also ceases to have any further stake or role to play in the case, the company said in a statement 
    Sahara says a proper verification process has not been implemented to ascertain the existence of its depositors — despite conclusive evidence forwarded to Sebi in the form of original documents, repayment vouchers and receipts 
    Sahara says as a market regulator, Sebi does not have the power to regulate unlisted entities. Sebi is looking to sell properties belonging to third parties which have been kept as security with Sebi, even when it has no authority to effect any such sale without the consent of the titleholders of the properties



Tuesday, 23 July 2013

Sahara blasts SEBI chief for ‘mischievous’ remarks

  • SEBI has just one-point programme – to destroy Sahara
  • Misleading, misinformation campaign
  • We are being singled out for punishment’
  •  Raises questions that why govt. depts. are not being punished

Delhi, July 22, 2013: Hitting back at SEBI and its Chairman, Sahara India Pariwar has said that the market regulator has just one-point agenda to “destroy” the image of the diversified conglomerate.

Countering the allegations made by SEBI Chairman on the OFCDs raised by it, Sahara said in a public notice that he has recently “mischievously misled” the people. “Right from the beginning SEBI’s one point programme has been to hit and destroy Sahara by mischievously misleading campaign of misinformation though trial by media,” Sahara said.

Sahara recalled that when it promoted OFCDs for the first time in 2001, it had obtained a written permission for its OFCD issue from the Registrar of Companies (RoC) Kolkata under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs way back in 2001 and submitted prospectus to the same Registrar (filing the return) with the details of around 1.87 crore investors with their names, addresses and amounts raised etc.

Sahara is being accused of violating the rules pubic issue rules on the pretext that the raising of funds from more than 50 investors does not remain a private placement. But the fact is that even after informing of 1.87 crore investors in 2007, neither RoC nor any of the government departments raised any objection. On the contrary, in 2008, Sahara got permission from two RoCs – Kanpur and Mumbai - for raising funds through OFCD again. Moreover, all through these 10 years, various RoCs regularly did inspections, investigation and regularly took Balance Sheets and returns and other documents as per Companies Act. RoCs permitted Sahara and to that extent they were the concerned regulators for the OFCD, Sahara argued.

Recalling the SEBI’s wavering stand, Sahara said the regulator had forwarded a complaint against the Sahara companies - Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited - received in April 2010 to two different Regional Directors of Corporate Affairs Ministry, for appropriate action.

SEBI had even said in its letter to the two Regional Directors, who were concerned with the ROCs which permitted the OFCDs, that the issue did not fall under the market regulator’s purview since the companies were unlisted.  

Subsequently, Sahara pointed out, the Minister of State for Finance had informed the Lok Sabha in April 2010 itself on a question relating to CitiCorp’s OFCD issue that in the matters of unlisted companies issuing securities to several thousands of persons, SEBI does not exercise any jurisdiction. This statement was based on what the Executive Director, SEBI informed the Finance Ministry.

In November same year, however, SEBI took a complete U turn and submitted through an affidavit in Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court that SEBI is the regulator for Sahara OFCDs, Sahara said.
Sahara pointed out in its public statement that SEBI should be severely punished for lying in Parliament or in its affidavit in the High Court. Any other citizen would have been jailed for such an act, Sahara said.
Mr. Mohan Parasaranji, the then Additional Solicitor General of India (and now the Solicitor General) had also expressed his opinion on the query raised by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs that Sahara was right and SEBI wrong.

Dr. Ashok Nigam, Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, also submitted through Affidavit in the Court that Sahara was right and SEBI was wrong.
Mr. Mohan Parasaranji, the then Additional Solicitor General of India (and now the Solicitor General) had also expressed his opinion on the query raised by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs that Sahara was right and SEBI wrong. He mentioned in his letter, “SEBI has no jurisdiction over the unlisted companies like the Sahara Group of Companies which are not intending to get themselves listed.”

Dr. Ashok Nigam, Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, also submitted through Affidavit in the Court that Sahara was right and SEBI was wrong. He also added, “In issuance of OFCD the petitioner company after their registration with the Registrar of Companies has been permissible under the law. The Central Government remains the regulating authority for the company. It has got its own control system in place which has been under constant review with the developments taking place in the corporate world and it has already increased its controlling aspect of such companies and would further strengthen the same by making keener and deeper scrutiny of private placement of companies”.

In addition, as many as five other legal luminaries, including two former Chief Justices of India and one ex-Chairman of Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), expressed the opinion in favour of Sahara. The Law Ministry with the signature of the then Minister Mr Veerappa Moily, officially communicated to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) that Sahara was right and SEBI was wrong. MCA had, in fact, asked for the Law Ministry’s opinion, but they never produced it anywhere. But, somehow, Sahara got the copy and produced it in the court. SEBI has not yet reacted to it in the Court.

Contrary to its view on Sahara, SEBI took an altogether different stand in the Kalpana Bhandari Case before the Bombay High Court that it did not has jurisdiction over unlisted public companies that did not intend to list their shares.

Similarly, in another case ‘Society for Consumers and Investors Protection Vs. Union of India’ in Delhi High Court in, SEBI took a view that it did not command jurisdiction, under Section 55A of the Companies Act, 1956, over unlisted public companies which did not intend to get listed.

Further, in response to the Prayag Infotech Hi-Rise Ltd., letter dated 27th January, 2009, SEBI took a similar stand that unlisted companies did not come under its regulatory purview.

Stating that the company is being singled out for imposing a severe punishment, that too with a retrospective affect, Sahara asked as to why all the government departments are not being penalized. Had they not given repeated permissions Sahara would not have faced such a huge problem and injustice, the statement said and asked: “Is Sahara alone supposed to be solely responsible for the sanctity of law and legal system of the country that everybody should be hell bent upon punishing it with retrospective effect?”

Sahara explained that almost 3 years back it had voluntarily declared through a reputed Charted Accountant Firm that the liability, along with interest, of these two companies was Rs. 24,000 crores.

Sahara, which apprehended public violence across the country, began to refund the deposits much before that Supreme Court judgment of August 31, 2012 and some payments dragged up to September 20, 2012. Thus, Sahara’s liability was reduced to just Rs. 2,610 crores. Sahara also declared the Rs. 2500 crores as buffer amount subject to final verification of amounts. These figures were also certified by the same CA firm that declared the original liability of Rs 24,000 crores.

Following the Supreme Court order, Sahara deposited Rs 5120 crores with SEBI but the regulator is yet to pay to the investors. Is this the SEBI way of protecting the interest of small investors?

Sahara pointed out that SEBI accepted the liability figure of Rs. 24,000 crore as suited them and was not ready to accept the updated figure of Rs 2610 crores. Both the figures have been provided by Sahara itself and they are not come out as a result of any investigation by SEBI or any other body. Moreover, SEBI is supposed to refund about Rs 2000 crore to Sahara after refunding Rs 2610 crore to investors.

“It is important to note that there has been not a single complaint against Sahara. Had the payments not been made, there would have been violence and complaints throughout the country,” Sahara said and pointed out that nothing of this sort has happened.

Sahara said that the future of over 11 lakh workers is at stake and all that the company wants is justice.

Please refer to the following links containing Annexures: