The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned the hearing of the petition filed by the Sahara Group against the orders of the Allahabad High Court which necessitated the company to share full details of investors participating in its fund raising exercise with the market regulator SEBI.

A three judge-bench headed by the Chief Justice, Mr S.H. Kapadia, adjourned the matter for a week after the group's investment arm Sahara India Real Estate Corporation sought some time to file recent documents.

Counsels appearing for Sahara Group sought permission to file some additional documents, which was accepted by the bench.

Meanwhile, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the application filed by the Sahara Group firms to recall and restore its earlier order of April 7, vacating stay and allowed market regulator SEBI to collect information on the two Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCDs) scheme launched by it.

In its order dated April 29, the high court has said that despite the directions to give information to SEBI on its investment schemes, the group had not complied.

“A person, who comes to the court, is supposed to come with clean hands and has to abide by the orders passed by the court, more so in a case where the parties counsel agree for certain action to be undertaken.

“If some assurances is given by any person to the court, as has been done in the present case and the said assurance/ undertaking is not honoured, the court would not come to his rescue,” the court had said while rejecting Sahara's application.

The high court is also not satisfied with the Sahara group's plea that it has handed over two CDs to SEBI and said, “it would not pursue us to recall our order.”

SEBI had submitted before the High Court that the CDs had incomplete information.

“The information given was obviously incomplete, but even then it was pressed on behalf of the petitioner (Sahara) that they have given the required information, which cannot be said to be bona fide act on their part for compliance of the court's order,” the high court had said.

Related Topics