Statement from Sahara Counsels Ayush Chaudhary & Abhinav Mani Tripathi

We are thankful to the Hon’ble Court for giving us permission to raise funds via mortgage and sale of certain properties. Looking at the magnitude of the transactions involved, the Hon’ble Court has allowed us 90 days time to work from the conference room within Tihar Jail court premises, extending the facilities of video conferencing and meeting with various parties.

Apart from the mortgage of the three foreign properties, court has also allowed sale of ten domestic properties and a land parcel of Aamby Valley City. We are in a very advanced stage with many parties and shall execute these deals at the earliest. We have already deposited nearly Rs. 4,000/- crores in the ‘Sahara-SEBI Account’ and we shall be very shortly depositing the remaining amount along with the Bank Guarantee.

Sahara Counsel

Ayush Chaudhary & Abhinav Mani Tripathi

Sahara’s Rs. 12,000 Crores are already with SEBI

Sahara says that report of Due amount of Rs 40,000 Cr is incorrect, since such amount or such observation was never made during the course of hearing either by the Counsel appearing for SEBI or by the Hon’ble Court or any other Counsel. The figure of Rs. 40000 Cr. is imaginary and same amounts to irresponsible reporting of Court proceedings. There is no pleading or any document in the Court record which mentioned the figure of Rs. 40000 Cr. The order dictated in the open Court on 13.03.2015 also does not bear this figure and therefore, these amounts to incorrect reporting of Court proceedings which further dented the image of Mr. Roy and two directors in the public eye.

2.      In fact, the Court very fairly stated that amount payable was subject to verification and after verification all excess amount would be refunded Back to Sahara.

3.      There is no observation pertaining to the reporting of one month to save group by the Hon’ble Court, same is misconceived.

As a matter of fact, the Hon’ble Court observed during the proceeding to Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate that the outhouse facility along with secretarial staff etc. can be extended even up to “two months” provided a concrete proposal is put forward as far as the satisfaction of the bail bond of rest of the amount of about 6000 Cr. is concerned. Please note that Sahara's two companies are asked to provide proposal for complying with the remaining amount out of bail amount of Rs. 5,000 Cr cash (out of which Rs. 4,000 Cr. cash has already been paid to SEBI) and Rs. 5,000 Cr. as bank guarantee and not for any imagery figure of Rs. 40,000 Cr.  The period of 2 month was observed by the Hon’ble Court when Mr. Sibal requested for 8 weeks outhouse facility to finalize the transaction to satisfy the bail bond amount of Rs. 10,000 Cr. as ordered by the Hon’ble Court on 26.03.2014.

Therefore, the figure of 4 weeks as reported in the article is incorrect since Mr. Sibal sought 8 weeks’ time and not 4 weeks. Same is clarified to that extent.

4.      The news represented that an ultimatum was given whereas the order passed by the Hon’ble Court makes it clear that the Hon’ble Court accepted the request of not appointing a Receiver since Mr. Sibal stated that a serious attempt has been made for finalizing a deal of which the documents will be provided to the Amicus Curiae and the Counsel for SEBI. This acceptance of the request was also noted in the order dated 13.03.2015. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sibal stated that the situation of appointment of a Receiver may not arise if an opportunity is given. There is nothing mentioned in the order passed on 13.03.2015 about any ultimatum and therefore same amounts to incorrect reporting and same is clarified to that extent.

5.      The Hon’ble Court extended the facility of communication up to 5 hours a day to Mr. Roy and two directors of Sahara’s two companies, inside the jail premises which was not reported in the article. Further, jail authorities were also directed to facilitate Mr. Roy and two directors with two laptops for functioning which was also not reported in the article.

6.      During the hearing, SEBI was directed to file an affidavit clarifying its stand when a letter was indicated to the Hon’ble Court by Mr. Sibal that a communication was issued to HDFC Bank by SEBI on 19.12.2013 that the order dated 21.11.2013 only applies to specific movable and immovable properties in a particular application, therefore, RBI has no cause of action to state that there was a violation by Sahara India Financial Corporation Limited of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 21.11.2013 and 04.06.2014.

7.      Further, Mr. Sibal fairly stated during hearing that about Rs. 12,000 Cr. stands deposited with SEBI as on date out of which barely anything was disbursed by SEBI. The Hon’ble Court also made it clear that it will be open to argue on that issue at a later stage. However, the article in the front page of the newspaper reported that only Rs. 5,120 Cr. was deposited whereas nearly Rs. 12,000 Cr. stands deposited with SEBI as on date. Same is clarified to that extent.

Sebi lowers Sahara case expense estimates to Rs 25.88 cr

As a prolonged Sebi-Sahara battle continues, the regulator has revised lower the expenditure it

intends to recover from the business group to Rs 25.88 crore in the current fiscal towards money spent on identifying the investors and making refunds.

   As per the court orders, Saharas were asked to bear the costs incurred by Sebi in identifying the investors and repayment of refunds to them, which has been an uphill task for the capital markets watchdog.

     In its mid-term review of budget estimates for the current financial year 2014-15, Sebi is believed to have pegged the revised estimate of 'expenses recoverable from Sahara' at Rs 25.88 crore, down from the original budget estimate of Rs 37.66 crore. The actual expenditure already made till December 31, 2014, in this financial year stood at Rs 8.75 crore.

     This downward revision has taken place largely due to a planned expenditure being revised from Rs 12 crore to Rs 4 crore for the current fiscal because of non-operationalisation of a contract given to UTI-ITSL in the Sahara case.

     Besides, the advertisement charges have been revised lower from Rs 3 crore to Rs 1.46 crore.

     The amount earmarked for in-person verification charges has also been reduced, as the same could not be spent amid subsequent developments in the courts and henceforth a total amount of Rs 1 crore has been set aside for this particular purpose.

     In this high-profile case involving refund of over Rs 24,000 crore and additional interest of 15 per cent per annum, the Supreme Court had asked Sahara in August 2012 to submit all documents and refund money to SEBI for further repayments to genuine investors after verifying the documents.

     Sahara had submitted 5.28 crore documents to Sebi, which set up a Special Enforcement Cell for the case. Sebi had awarded a contract to Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd (SHCIL) for storage, digitisation, scanning etc, and to UTI Infrastructure & Technology Services Ltd (UTI-ITSL) for refund related activities. These two contracts were originally worth

about Rs 55 crore.

     In addition to these contracts, SEBI has incurred significant expenses under other heads also with regard to the Sahara case, including towards legal costs and the in-house refund handling expenses.

     Through one of its recent advertisements, Sebi had invited refund applications till January 31 from the eligible Sahara investors along with necessary documentary proof. Earlier, Sebi had invited refund claims to the regulator by September 30, 2014. 

SAHARA SEBI ISSUE – STATEMENT FROM KESHAV MOHAN, ADVOCATE

We are disappointed with the judgment that has been delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court earlier today. We are still in the process of reading and understanding the judgment. The voluminous evidence that we have already submitted to substantiate our stance may have possibly been misunderstood.We maintain that we have already refunded to 93% of our investors. Most of the payments made were in cash, as per the RBI norms and in accordance with SEBI and SAT orders. In addition to ledger entries, we had also submitted original vouchers, receipts and other concerned documents in original being physical proof of the payments and are with SEBI pending verification.

We expect to return to the Hon’ble Court in the near future with further evidence of our compliance of the Hon’ble Court’s previous orders, and to satisfy the Hon’ble Court of our earnest intentions moving forward.
The Hon’ble Court has indicated that it expects us to make a new proposal. Since the beginning, we have been trying hard to present the best practical proposal. We have always maintained that this will be actually a double payment which we are asked to make hence a serious relook into the business and financial status is required each time. In light of today’s direction, we will try our best to derive a fresh proposal to the best of our capacity and hoping to satisfy the Hon’ble Court. For this, we would also apply to the Hon’ble Court that our properties and bank accounts be defreezed so that we are in a position to come up to the expectations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
We take this opportunity to reiterate our deep and abiding respect for the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and our commitment to follow the order in letter and spirit.

Keshav Mohan
Advocate