SCI Order Sentencing Roy to Jail in CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 412 OF 2012 “S.E.B.I. ……PETITIONER(S) VERSUS SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORP. LTD. & ORS”: 4 March 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 412 OF 2012
IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9813 OF 2011
S.E.B.I. ……PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORP. LTD. & ORS. …..RESPONDENT(S)/
ALLEGED CONTEMNORS
W I T H
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 413 OF 2012 IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9833 OF 2011
IA NOS. 68-73 & 76-95 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9813 OF 2011
IA NO.1 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO…. IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9813 OF 2011
A N D
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 260 OF 2013 IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8643 OF 2012
O R D E R
1. Contemnors are personally present in the Court, including
the fifth respondent, who has been brought to the Court by
the U.P. Police, in due execution of our non-bailable warrant
of arrest.
2. We have heard the senior counsel on various occasions and
perused the various documents, affidavits, etc. We have
heard the learned counsel and contemnors today as well. We
are fully convinced that the contemnors have not complied
with our directions contained in the judgment dated August
31, 2012, as well as orders dated December 05, 2012 and
February 25, 2013 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8643 of 2012 and
1 of 5I.A. No. 67 of 2013 by a three Judge Bench of this Court.
3. Sufficient opportunities have been given to the
contemnors to fully comply with those orders and purge the
contempt committed by them but, rather than availing of the
same, they have adopted various dilatory tactics to delay the
implementation of the orders of this Court. Non-compliance
of the orders passed by this Court shakes the very foundation
of our judicial system and undermines the rule of law, which
we are bound to honour and protect. This is essential to
maintain faith and confidence of the people of this country
in the judiciary.
4. We have found that the contemnors have maintained an
unreasonable stand throughout the proceedings before SEBI,
SAT, High Court and even before this Court. Reports/analysis
filed by SEBI on 18.02.2014 make detailed reference to the
submissions, documents, etc. furnished by the contemnors,
which indicates that they are filing and making unacceptable
statements and affidavits all through and even in the
contempt proceedings. Documents and affidavits produced by
the contemnors themselves would apparently falsify their
refund theory and cast serious doubts about the existence of
the so-called investors. All the fact finding authorities
have opined that majority of investors do not exist.
Preservation of market integrity is extremely important for
economic growth of this country and for national interest.
Maintaining investors’ confidence requires market integrity
and control of market abuse. Market abuse is a serious
financial crime which undermines the very financial structure
of this country and will make imbalance in wealth between
haves and have nots.
5. We notice, on this day also, no proposal is forthcoming
2 of 5to honour the judgment of this Court dated 31st August, 2012
and the orders passed by this Court on December 05, 2012 and
February 25, 2013 by the three Judge Bench. In such
circumstances, in exercise of the powers conferred under
Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India, we order
detention of all the contemnors, except Mrs. Vandana Bhargava
(the fourth respondent) and send them to judicial custody at
Delhi, till the next date of hearing. This concession is
being extended towards the fourth respondent because she is a
woman Director, and also, to enable the contemnors to be in a
position to propose an acceptable solution for execution of
our orders, by coordinating with the detenues. Mrs. Vandana
Bhargava, who herself is one of the Directors, is permitted
to be in touch with the rest of the contemnors and submit an
acceptable proposal arrived at during their detention, so
that the Court can pass appropriate orders.
6. List on March 11, 2014 at 2.00 p.m. All the contemnors
be produced in Court on that date. Mrs. Vandana Bhargava,
the fourth respondent, to appear on her own. However,
liberty is granted for mentioning the matters for preponement
of the date, if a concrete and acceptable proposal can be
offered in the meantime.
………………J.
(K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN)
………………J.
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)
NEW DELHI,
MARCH 04, 2014.

http://sci.nic.in/outtoday/sahara-cc41212.pdf

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s