//
you're reading...
legal issues

Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited (SHICL) – Grant of Parole- declined – Permission to sale some properties situated in Off shore – granted = I.A. NOS. 8-9 & 10-12 OF 2014 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.412 OF 2012 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9813 OF 2011 S.E.B.I. …Appellant Versus Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41779

 Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (SIRECL)  and  Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited (SHICL) – Grant of Parole- declined – Permission to sale some properties situated in Off shore – granted =

whether the contemnors can  be  granted parole as prayed for in the applications?

We regret to say that we do  not,

for the present, see any justification for us to take a view different  from

the one taken in our order dated 4th June, 2014.  There  is  nothing  before

us to show that Shri Subrata Roy Sahara suffers  from  any  serious  medical

condition. At any rate, we expect the jail doctors to keep a  check  on  his

medical condition and provide necessary medical aid as  and  when  required.

The alternative ground urged for the grant of parole  also  does  not  stand

closer scrutiny. There is, at present, no  concrete  proposal  with  Saharas

for sale of the properties situate in India or abroad that may call for  any

negotiation by Shri Subrata Roy Sahara.  While it  may  be  true  that  such

negotiations cannot  be  said  to  be  advisable  when  properties  of  such

magnitude as in the instant case are sought to  be  sold,  yet  it  is  pre-

mature for us to make any arrangement to facilitate  any  such  negotiations

either by directing  release  of  Shri  Subrata  Roy  Sahara  on  parole  or

otherwise.

We may make it  clear  that  if  a  situation  arises  in  which

negotiations become essential, this Court may  consider  passing  orders  to

facilitate such negotiations. Beyond that we do not  consider  it  necessary

or proper to say anything at this stage.

I.As. No.8-9 of 2014 in Contempt Petitions (C) No.412 and 413 of  2012

are dismissed.

2.    I.As. No.10-12 of 2014 in Contempt Petitions (C) No.412 of  2012,  413

of 2012 and 260 of 2013 are allowed to the extent that three offshore  hotel

properties  owned  by  Saharas  are  allowed  to  be  transferred,  sold  or

encumbered subject to the  condition  that  the  entire  sale  consideration

received by the Saharas after repayment of the loan outstanding towards  the

Bank of China is deposited with SEBI towards compliance with the  directions

contained in the conditional bail  order  dated  26.3.2014  passed  by  this

Court. The excess amount, if any, shall be deposited by  the  Saharas  in  a

separate  account  to  await  orders  from  this   Court   regarding   their

utilisation. The sale of the offshore properties shall not  be  at  a  price

lesser than the value estimated by CBRE and  JLL  for  the  said  properties

reduced at the most by 5% of such value.

3.    We clarify that sale of remainder  of  the  properties  which  Saharas

have been allowed to transfer, sell or encumber in terms of our order  dated

4th June, 2014 shall not be at a price less than the estimated value of  the

said properties reduced at the most by 5% of such estimate.

2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41779

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,704,216 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,852 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com