- (1.) Before we advert to the reliefs claimed in these applications and announce the outcome thereof, we would like to recapitulate, very briefly, the genesis for moving these applications as we feel that such a recount of the previous events would make it easy to understand the circumstances under which these applications have been filed. It would also provide us the course of action that is to be taken on the prayers made in these applications.
(2.) The main proceedings with which we are concerned are the contempt petitions bearing Nos. 412 of 2012 and 413 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 9813 of 2011 and 9833 of 2011 as well as Contempt Petition No. 260 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 8643 of 2012. These contempt petitions filed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short, 'SEBI') have the origin in the judgments that were pronounced in the civil appeals, numbers whereof are mentioned above. It so happened that Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited (SHICL) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Saharas') invited and claimed to have collected deposits from general public who, allegedly, included cobblers, labourers, artisans, peasants etc. This invitation for deposit was in the form of 'Optional Fully Convertible Debentures' (OFCD). SEBI found that offering of such OFCD was not legally permissible and passed orders directing Saharas not to offer their equity shares/ OFCDs or any other securities to the public or invite subscription in any manner whatsoever either directly or indirectly. The High Court of Bombay dismissed their petitions and directed Sahara Companies, in particular the promoter Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, and Directors Ms. Vandana Bhargava, Mr. Ravi Shankar Dubey and Mr. Ashok Roy Choudhary of Saharas to jointly and severely refund the amount collected by Saharas in terms of the aforesaid issue along with interest @ 15% per annum. It is pertinent to mention that on the basis of these directions of the High Court, SEBI ordered that refund of the amount shall be made only through demand drafts or pay orders. Certain other directions were also issued. Aggrieved by these orders of SEBI, Saharas approached Securities Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'SAT'). SAT also declined to interfere with the view taken by SEBI and directed Saharas to refund the amount collected from the investors within a period of six weeks. Against these orders of SAT, Civil Appeal Nos. 9813 of 2011 and 9833 of 2011 were preferred by Saharas in this Court, which were finally disposed of by order dated 31.08.2012. While substantially maintaining the orders of SEBI and SAT, a modification was made in those orders with a direction to Saharas to deposit the amount collected by them along with interest @ 15% per annum with SEBI within a period of three months. The amount when deposited was directed to be invested in a nationalised bank to earn interest. Saharas were also directed to furnish details with supporting documents to establish whether they had refunded any amount to the investors who had subscribed through the Red Herring Prospectus (RHP) in question. SEBI was then to examine the correctness of the details so furnished. Failure to prove the refund of the amount by Saharas had to give rise to an inference that Saharas had not refunded the amount to the real and genuine subscribers as directed by SEBI.
(3.) Aforesaid directions were admittedly not complied with. Instead, another appeal, being Appeal No. 221 of 2012, was preferred by Saharas before SAT which was dismissed as premature. Against that order, Civil Appeal No. 8643 of 2012 was filed in this Court which was decided on 05-12-2012. The Saharas had produced before the Court, demand drafts for a total sum of .5120 crores. This Court directed them to handover the same to SEBI. Further direction was given to deposit the balance amount of .17,400 crores together with interest @ 15% per annum with SEBI in two installments. First installment of .10,000 crores was to be deposited with SEBI by first week of January, 2013 and balance amount, along with interest, was to be deposited by first week of February, 2013. However, the balance amount or the interest payable, as per the installments, was not deposited though it was to be deposited by January/February, 2013. It resulted in filing of the contempt petitions, which are the main proceedings at hand. In these contempt petitions various opportunities were given to the contemnors to purge the contempt by depositing the amount, as directed. The record shows that at various stages the contemnors gave the proposals for compliance with the directions which were explored from time to time, but eventually all these proposals were found to be unsatisfactory, yielding no tangible results. This was perceived as stubborn attitude of the contemnors with sole intent to drag on the matter endlessly without complying with the orders. This attitude of the contemnors forced this Court to issue non-bailable warrants against Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara for his production and directing personal presence of the other three Directors in the Court on the date fixed. On 04.03.2014, when the matter was listed, and during the hearing as it transpired that no acceptable proposal was forthcoming to comply with the directions, the Court was left with no option except to commit the three out of four contemnors to judicial custody. We would like to mention that by that time, after including the interest which had accumulated, a sum of .33,000 crores had to be deposited.;