A day after SEBI indirectly trained its guns on Sahara, the group has come out with facts justifying its cash payment claim. It also alleged that the regulator had not taken action in some other cases.
In a statement, the Lucknow-based group claimed that out of 3.07 crore investors in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation (SHICL), 2.99 crore had investment up to Rs 20,000.
‘Under law only’
Justifying cash payment to these investors, it said, “up to Rs 20,000 repayments (including interest) it is cash payments only as per country’s law.”
Majority of these payments were made in over five months’ time, not in four months.
Nothing fictitious
On Thursday, the SEBI Chairman, U.K. Sinha, without naming the company or group, had said, “There is a famous instance where a company has claimed that it has refunded more than Rs 20,000 crore in the last three to four months to so-called investors, out of which more than 90 per cent has been returned in cash. How credible can this story be?”
In its response, the group reaffirmed its challenge that there could not be any case of fictitious or fake investors in Sahara. It also said that in case of Residuary Non-Banking Company (RNBC), under RBI regulation, seven years’ time was given to repay the deposits. The order was given in 2008, but the entire amount (around Rs 20,000 crore for three crore investors) was almost repaid three years in advance, it claimed.
The group also alleged that even after the Supreme Court’s order related with Golden Forest Company in 2004, not a single rupee had been paid to any investors till date. Workers and investors also knew that there were dozens of other companies where SEBI had taken action but not a single investor had received even one rupee till now, it added.
The group also denied any wrongdoing in the Optionally Full Convertible Debentures (OFCD) business, as it claimed having all valid permissions in writing from the Central Government through the Ministry of Corporate affairs as its regulator, who continuously used to inspect and investigate balance sheets, etc.
“Government departments who gave us written permission are not accused at all. Had they not given these permissions, we would not have collected even one rupee and we would not have faced any problem,” it clarified.