Supreme Court lets Sebi sell Sahara property

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Sebi to initiate the process of selling 86 “unencumbered” properties of Sahara group, whose title deeds are with the market regulator, to generate the bail money for release of its chief Subrata Roy who has been in jail for two years now.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice T.S. Thakur also asked the regulator not to sell any of the properties of the beleaguered group below 90 per cent of the circle rates. The bench, also comprising Justices A.R. Dave and A.K. Sikri, said the regulator will have to take its prior nod before going ahead with the sale of any property if it (Sebi) receives bids even below 90 per cent of the circle rate. “You (Sebi) evolve mechanism and start selling the properties and we are passing the order to this effect,” the bench said when the counsel for Sebi alleged that nothing concrete was happening on the ground.

For Mr Roy’s interim bail, the court had asked him to deposit Rs 5,000 crore in cash and a bank guarantee of equal amount. Mr Roy has been in prison since March 4, 2014. The order, asking Sebi to proceed with the sale of properties, came when senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mr Roy, submitted that the group was finding it increasingly difficult to sell its properties in the current market environment. It also asked both the parties to constitute a committee for this purpose.

The 86 properties do not include the “foreign properties of Sahara nor Aamby Valley City nor Sahara Star hotel.” The court said the entire process would be undertaken under the supervision of Justice Agrawal. The court took strong note of Sibal’s submission that law and fact are on his side and moreover, “nowhere in the world persons are kept in jail like this.”

“Argue on facts and law and don’t lecture us. Nowhere in world, it happens that a person claims to be a man of Rs 1.8 lakh crore and still does not pay Rs 10,000 crore for getting out,” the bench said. “You are in jail on the orders of this court. Which may be right or wrong. We are not sitting in appeal on that order,” the bench said.