order as the review petition against the August 2012 judgement was pending and he would demonstrate the "error on the face of the records".
order as the review petition against the August 2012 judgement was pending and he would demonstrate the "error on the face of the records".
The bench, which was not impressed with his contentions, said, "You talk about the attachment of the property. We have no option. You give the list of unencumbered properties which are good enough to bring Rs 14,000 crore. Then we will let you (take back) the Aamby Valley (property) and we will hear you." The bench also said the question of consideration of the interest amount would be taken up after the principal amount has been realised.
When the Sahara Group pleaded that it should be given an opportunity to explain its case to satisfy the court that its orders were erroneous, the bench said, "There is no question of going back."
Sibal submitted that there was a need for "breathing time" for making the payment and contended that no bank or investor was claiming the money from Sahara Group.
The senior advocate also raised the issue of demonetisation and liquidity crunch in generating the money.
It was following this submission, that the bench asked him to make effort for public auction of the unencumbered properties and expressed its intention of seeking placing a list of properties which are free from litigation and mortgage.
While the bench was deliberating on the issue of the list of properties and wanted to know about the Aamby Valley, senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae, and SEBI counsel, said the hill resort was approximately worth Rs 39,000 crore.
The bench noted that the SEBI counsel and Naphade were of the view that the Aamby Valley property was substantial for realising the amount and they favoured its attachement as such a move would press Roy and other directors to endeavour for depositing the amount in the SEBI-Sahara account. This was opposed by Sibal.
However, the bench said, it was convinced that the property should be ordered to be attached. (More)
(This article has not been edited by DNA's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}