Case Related to Sahara Group Firms To Be Heard In Supreme Court: The petition filed against the order of the Delhi High Court to stay the investigation against 9 companies associated with Sahara Group will be heard in the Supreme Court on Thursday 26 May. Government’s Serious Fraud Investigation Office on the order of the High Court […]
Case Related to Sahara Group Firms To Be Heard In Supreme Court: On Thursday, May 26, the Supreme Court will hear the petition filed against the order of the Delhi High Court to stay the investigation against 9 companies linked to the Sahara Group. The Government’s Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) has challenged the High Court order in the Supreme Court. The matter was presented in the Supreme Court today i.e. on Wednesday also before the division bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Bela M Trivedi, which has directed to hear the matter on Thursday.
Hearing adjourned as Sibal was not present in Delhi
The SFIO in its petition has challenged the decision of the Delhi High Court to stay the investigation against nine companies of the Sahara Group. When the SFIO’s application came before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the lawyer appearing for the Sahara group requested to postpone the hearing till Thursday. He said that his team is being led by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who is not present in Delhi today, so the hearing should be held tomorrow i.e. on Thursday. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for SFIO, said that they are not opposing this request. Mehta said that he has been assured that during the course of the consideration of the case, no important person connected with the trial will leave the country to avoid legal action, as such a risk remains in this case. After this, the Supreme Court directed to hear the matter tomorrow i.e. on Thursday.
High Court has given relief to Sahara Group
SFIO, the statutory investigation agency set up to investigate corporate fraud, has challenged the order of the Delhi High Court on 13 December 2021 in the Supreme Court. In this order, the High Court had barred the Sahara Group chief and others from taking any future action, including taking any coercive action or issuing look-out notices. On May 17, the Supreme Court, accepting the agency’s request, allowed the hearing of its petition against the order of the High Court. Tushar Mehta had told the Supreme Court at that time that all investigation and action being done under the orders of the Central Government on 31 October 2018 and 27 October 2020 has come to a halt due to the direction of the High Court. Even the issuance of lookout notices is prohibited. This is affecting the investigation of SFIO going on in these important cases very badly, so the matter should be heard at the earliest.
What was the argument of Sahara Group in Delhi High Court
The Sahara Group, while appearing in the Delhi High Court, had said that in the first order of October 31, 2018, the government had sought investigation into the functioning of three companies – Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd, Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Ltd. Was told. After this, in the order of 27 October 2020, investigation started against 6 more companies – Aamby Valley Limited, King Aamby City Developers Corporation Limited, Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited, Sahara Prime City Limited, Sahara India Financial Corporation Limited and Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited. was instructed to do. But in this order no reason was given for starting this investigation.
Why did the Delhi High Court give relief?
It was also argued on behalf of the Sahara Group that these 6 companies were not at any time subsidiaries or holding companies of those three companies, against whom the investigation was already being done. The Delhi High Court, after hearing the arguments of both the sides in this matter, had given a decision giving relief to the Sahara group. The High Court had said in its order that after hearing the arguments of the Sahara Group companies, the court has come to the conclusion that prima facie they are entitled to interim relief. If this is not done, then it can cause them such loss, which will never be compensated. SFIO has now challenged this order of the High Court in the Supreme Court.
