SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 605

S. H. KAPADIA, D. K. JAIN, S. S. NIJJAR, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board of India – Respondent


Advocate Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:Goolam E. Vahanvati, AG, Ms. Indra Jaising, ASG, Soli J. Sorabjee, T. R. Andhyarujina, K.K. Venugopal, F.S. Nariman, Sidharth Luthra, Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, Shanti Bhushan, Anil Divan, Ram Jethmalani, Kailash Vasdev, K.T.S. Tuls, Parag P. Tripathi, Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advocates, Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, Ms. Mehernaz, Soumik Ghosal, Ankur Talwar, Rohit Bhat, Shyam Mohan, Ms. Ashswati Balraj, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Gaurav Kejriwal, C.D. Singh, Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, Ms. Namrata Sood, Gaurav Nair, Debdatt Kamatt (For M/s. K.J. John & Co.), Gagan Kannan, Ms. Supriya Jain, B.V. Balaram Das, Anup Bhambhani, Ms. Nisha Bhambhani, Ms. Bhavita Modi, Ms. Lakshita Sethi, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Manohar Lal Sharma (In-person), Ajit Sharma, Harsh Vardhan Surana, Nikhil Nayyar, Rajshekhar Rao, Shakhar G. Devasa, K.V. Dananjay, Rohit Pandey, Adarsh Upadhyay, Wills Mathews, Rabin Majumdar, Prashant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Shailendra Swarup, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Vikas Mehta, Madhavi Divan, D. Bharat Kumar, M. Sayooj Mohandas, Aabad H.H. Ponda, Irshad Ahmad, Ms. Sushasini Sen, S. Naved, Rahul Kripalini, Snehasish Mukherjee, Ms. Jyotika Kalra, Ms. Annwesha Deb, Anukul Chandra Pradhan (In-person), Dr. M.P. Raju, P. George Giri, Ashish Azad, Ms. Sandhya Raghav, Sunil Kumar Rana (In-person), Balraj S. Malik, Dr. Manish Arora, Arvind K. Gupta, Setu Niket, Ms. E. Mazumdar, Vijay Panjwani,Anip Sachthey, Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Ms. Ekta Kapil, Ms. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Ritin Rai, Nakul Dewan, Siddhartha Jha, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Ashok Arora, Ravi Shankar Kumar, Kushagra Arora, B.K. Choudhary, Arun Kumar, Subhiksh Vasudev, Nitin Kumar Thakur, Amit Anand Tiwari, Mohit Kumar Shah, Advocates.

JUDGMENT :-

S.H. KAPADIA, CJI.

Introduction

1. Finding an acceptable constitutional balance between free press and administration of justice is a difficult task in every legal system.

Factual background

2. Civil Appeal Nos. 9813 and 9833 of 2011 were filed challenging the order dated 18.10.2011 of the Securities Appellate Tribunal whereby the appellants (hereinafter for short “Sahara”) were directed to refund amounts invested with the appellants in certain Optionally Fully Convertible Bonds (OFCD) with interest by a stated date.

3. By order dated 28.11.2011, this Court issued show cause notice to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), respondent No. 1 herein, directing Sahara to put on affidavit as to how they intend to secure the liabilities incurred by them to the OFCD holders during the pendency of the Civil Appeals.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 28.11.2011, on 4.01.2012, an affidavit was filed by Sahara explaining the manner in which it proposed to secure its liability to OFCD holders during the pendency of the Civil Appeals.

5. On 9.01.2012, both the appeals were admitted for hearing. However, IA No. 3 for interim relief filed by Sahara was kept for h




























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top