Sahara Group have 90 days time to raise Rs 1,200 crore

On Monday, the Supreme Court gave a time period of 90 days to Sahara group to finalize the deal of its three hotels which includes abroad and domestic properties to raise the Rs 5,000 crore cash component of the bail condition for release of its owner Subrata Roy and its other two group directors. As per the statement of a bench of Justices A K Sikri and T S Thakur, we have given you the last and final opportunity and this time if you will fail so we will appoint the receiver for auction of your assets.

Why money is essential for Sahara Group:

Last year on March 4, Roy was sent to jail for the violation of the order of apex court on dated August 31, 2012, directing two group companies to return Rs 24,000 crore to investors. Sahara has deposited Rs 5,120 crore by claiming that it had a liability of just a little more than Rs 2,000 crore. However, it is well know thing that on March 26, 2014, the court was granted an interim bail to Roy and its two directors by stating that they would be released only after the deposit of Rs 5,000 crore in cash and furnished bank guarantee for another Rs 5,000 crore. Till now the group has deposited approx. Rs 3,800 crore and is short by Rs 1,200 crore. Appearing for Sahara, its senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the bench that one of the Hong Kong-based financial reconstruction companies is facilitating a 900 million euro deal with Dubai based firm known as Trinity that would take over Bank of China’s (BoC) charge on the three hotels, Dream Downtown and the Plaza in New York and Grosvenor House in London.

The more he added that the buyers Spanish Bank BBVA has confirmed the buyer’s financial capability that had certified that the buyer had more than 900 million euros in its account and it represents that they had earned and through non-criminal activities.He said the buyer’s financial capability was confirmed by Spanish Bank BBVA, which had certified that the buyer had more than 900 million euros in its account which was legitimately earned and through non-criminal activity. Sibal said that after paying off BoC, Sahara would get Rs 650 crore, which would be deposited towards meeting the bail bond conditions.

An effort to raise Money:

However, when SC asked that how Sahara group will arrange the remain money for bail, so Sibal replied that Sahara Group was planning to sell more than 10 properties including residential and commercial properties and in addition to nine already identified for the purpose. Out of nine, the group has already sold five and it will provide another Rs 700 crore, the Sibal added. The bench of SC said it was prima facie satisfied with the group’s extended conference room facility and proposal in Tihar jail for Sahara Chief and two directors to negotiate and finalize the deals. On the competent of bank guarantee, Sibal added that the group plans to pledge 800 acres of its Aamby Valley project, so that an Argentine bank can get a bank guarantee through HSBC and Panama is one of the names of Aamby Ventures, Mauritius.

According to bank, Aamby Ventures is nominating the Rs 5,000 crore bank guarantee in of SEBI-Sahara account, but court said that as you are struggling to raise Rs. 1,200 crore for your release, so a very next day after your release from jail we can ask for the rest Rs 30,000 crore as you were directed to pay. So do you have any plan to arrange that money or how you are going to arrange that money in future? In reply Sibal added that “we don’t agree that we have the liability to pay Rs 30,000 crore as we are not arguing that today, just allow us space to cross the first hurdle in the fight, on that issue we will argue on another day. After knowing a soft corner Justice Thakur has for poetry Sibal stated that “Roj ki yeh jang hai, kaheen kati patang hai! Mauka mila fir bhi, laga raasta to tang hai” to highlight the difficult period the Sahara group through which Sahara group is going through in these days to carry on negotiation process to sale the property.

In the reply of the “shayari” of Justice Thakur, on Monday Justice Sikri return the favor by saying that, “Dard ki yoon aadat ho gayi hai! Jis din dard na mile to bhi dard sa hota hai” to drive home that such financial difficulties have become a way of life for the Sahara group.

Women has no rights on in-laws property

Recently, the Supreme Court has come to rescue one of the senior citizens by evicting the estranged daughter-in-law from his Yamuna Vihar property. Now apex court is in the process to uphold the verdict of the Delhi High Court that a daughter in law has no right over a self acquired property of the in-laws, against the latter’s consent.

About Case:

To safeguard the rights of the single mother and her two children, Supreme Court ordered the husband to provide n alternate accommodation or property on her name and pay monthly maintenance as per law. In the recent order, one of the benches of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Madan B Lokur also put an end to years of fighting between the women, her in-laws and as well her husband by granting the couple divorce. However in the end judges made it clear that she will get possession of the flat only on vacating the father-in-law’s property.

Case against Delhi High Court ruling:

SC formalized a complex settlement between the feuding parties on an appeal which was filled by the woman against the Delhi HC ruling. High Court had directed her to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property to her estranged father-in-law, the owner, dismissing her argument that as a legally wedded wife, she had a right to live in the property. The victim claimed that property was purchased out by joint family funds, and argued that under Domestic Violence Act, the property is a shared household where she has the right to reside.

But in that particular case, advocate Prabhjit Jauhar from the side of father in law, filed a suit for her eviction in 2011 in the Karkardooma Court by arguing in effect that a daughter in law has no automatic right to a property self owned by the father in law, if it is not an ancestral home or one purchased with joint funds. Neither the Dv Act nor any other law permit the daughter in law to stay against the in laws wishes, he submitted.