advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, August 1, 2014

Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited (SHICL) - Grant of Parole- declined - Permission to sale some properties situated in Off shore - granted = I.A. NOS. 8-9 & 10-12 OF 2014 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.412 OF 2012 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9813 OF 2011 S.E.B.I. …Appellant Versus Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41779

 Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (SIRECL)  and  Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited (SHICL) - Grant of Parole- declined - Permission to sale some properties situated in Off shore - granted =

whether the contemnors can  be  granted parole as prayed for in the applications?
We regret to say that we do  not,
for the present, see any justification for us to take a view different  from
the one taken in our order dated 4th June, 2014.  There  is  nothing  before
us to show that Shri Subrata Roy Sahara suffers  from  any  serious  medical
condition. At any rate, we expect the jail doctors to keep a  check  on  his
medical condition and provide necessary medical aid as  and  when  required.
The alternative ground urged for the grant of parole  also  does  not  stand
closer scrutiny. There is, at present, no  concrete  proposal  with  Saharas
for sale of the properties situate in India or abroad that may call for  any
negotiation by Shri Subrata Roy Sahara.  While it  may  be  true  that  such
negotiations cannot  be  said  to  be  advisable  when  properties  of  such
magnitude as in the instant case are sought to  be  sold,  yet  it  is  pre-
mature for us to make any arrangement to facilitate  any  such  negotiations
either by directing  release  of  Shri  Subrata  Roy  Sahara  on  parole  or
otherwise.
We may make it  clear  that  if  a  situation  arises  in  which
negotiations become essential, this Court may  consider  passing  orders  to
facilitate such negotiations. Beyond that we do not  consider  it  necessary
or proper to say anything at this stage.

 I.As. No.8-9 of 2014 in Contempt Petitions (C) No.412 and 413 of  2012
are dismissed.

2.    I.As. No.10-12 of 2014 in Contempt Petitions (C) No.412 of  2012,  413
of 2012 and 260 of 2013 are allowed to the extent that three offshore  hotel
properties  owned  by  Saharas  are  allowed  to  be  transferred,  sold  or
encumbered subject to the  condition  that  the  entire  sale  consideration
received by the Saharas after repayment of the loan outstanding towards  the
Bank of China is deposited with SEBI towards compliance with the  directions
contained in the conditional bail  order  dated  26.3.2014  passed  by  this
Court. The excess amount, if any, shall be deposited by  the  Saharas  in  a
separate  account  to  await  orders  from  this   Court   regarding   their
utilisation. The sale of the offshore properties shall not  be  at  a  price
lesser than the value estimated by CBRE and  JLL  for  the  said  properties
reduced at the most by 5% of such value.

3.    We clarify that sale of remainder  of  the  properties  which  Saharas
have been allowed to transfer, sell or encumber in terms of our order  dated
4th June, 2014 shall not be at a price less than the estimated value of  the
said properties reduced at the most by 5% of such estimate.

2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41779

REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

                        I.A. NOS. 8-9 & 10-12 OF 2014
                                     IN
                    CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.412 OF 2012
                                     IN
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9813 OF 2011


S.E.B.I.                                           …Appellant

Versus

Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd.
& Ors.                                             …Respondents

                                    WITH

                        I.A. NOS. 8-9 & 10-12 OF 2014

                                     IN
                    CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.413 OF 2012
                                     IN
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9833 OF 2011

                                     AND

                           I.A. NOS. 10-12 OF 2014

                                     IN
                    CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.260 OF 2013
                                     IN
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8643 OF 2012


                               J U D G M E N T

T.S. Thakur, J.

1.    By our order dated 4th June, 2014 we had, while declining  the  prayer
made by the contemnors for modification of the  terms  on  which  they  were
granted interim bail, partially modified order  dated  21st  November,  2013
passed by this Court and that passed by SEBI on 13th February,  2013  so  as
to enable Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (SIRECL)  and  Sahara
Housing Investment Corporation Limited (SHICL) (hereinafter referred  to  as
‘Saharas’  for  short)  to  deposit  with  SEBI  the   maturity   value/sale
consideration of FDs, bonds and securities held  by  the  Saharas.   We  had
also,  by  the  same  order,  permitted  Saharas  to  sell  nine   different
properties situate in nine different cities in the country  and  to  deposit
the sale proceeds thereof with SEBI, to the extent the  same  was  necessary
to make a total deposit of Rs.5,000/- crores required in terms of  the  bail
order. We had also  permitted  Saharas  to  charge  its  immovable  property
situate in Aamby Valley (Pune) for obtaining and furnishing to this Court  a
bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.5,000/-  crores  in  terms  of  the  bail
order dated 4th June, 2014. As regards Sahara’s  prayer  for  permission  to
sell three hotel properties situate outside the country,  we  had  left  the
question open  to  be  determined  after  Saharas  furnished  the  requisite
documents/information in terms of our order dated 29th May, 2014  evidencing
the approval of Bank of China to the proposed transfer of  the  stakes  held
by the Saharas in the said three properties. We were informed that  Bank  of
China had a charge over the three properties  and  that  it  had  agreed  in
principle to the  sale  of  the  stakes  held  by  Saharas  subject  to  the
repayment of the outstanding loan amount for which the said properties  were
charged. We had also noticed the valuation reports in regard  to  the  three
properties mentioned above and a contention urged by Saharas that  the  same
had been prepared by reputed valuers at the instance of the  Bank  of  China
in connection with the loan transactions as a part of the  ongoing  exercise
undertaken by the bankers. We had asked Saharas  to  obtain  a  confirmation
from the Bank of China to the effect that the valuation reports prepared  in
respect of the three offshore hotel properties by CBRE  and  JLL  have  been
prepared at the instance of the Bank of China and that  the  same  had  been
accepted by the bank to be correct.   We  were  of  the  view  that  such  a
confirmation would  lend  re-assurance  to  the  Court  that  the  valuation
reports represented the true value of the stakes held by the Saharas in  the
said three properties. This is evident from the  following  portion  of  the
order passed by us on 29th May, 2014:

“Dr. Dhawan submitted, on instructions, that  an  appropriate  communication
could subject to the order of this Court be addressed to the Bank  of  China
by the Saharas seeking its approval to the proposed transfer of  the  stakes
held by Saharas in the three properties  mentioned  above,  subject  to  the
repayment of the loan  outstanding  against  those  properties.  Dr.  Dhawan
submitted that a copy of the communication addressed to the  Bank  of  China
and its response shall be placed on record before this Court along  with  an
affidavit within one week from today. He further submitted that  apart  from
the correspondence that may be exchanged on the subject between Saharas  and
the Bank of China, the
Bank of China  will  also  be  requested  to  confirm  the  amount  that  is
outstanding towards the loan advanced by it in regard to  each  one  of  the
three properties mentioned above to give a clear picture to this  Courts  to
the outstanding liability that remains to be liquidated by the  Saharas  qua
the said properties.
Our attention was also drawn to the  valuation  reports  in  regard  to  the
three properties mentioned earlier. It was urged  that  the  said  valuation
reports have been prepared by reputed valuers at the instance  of  the  Bank
of China in connection with the loan transactions  as  a  part  of  on-going
annual exercise undertaken by the lending  Bank.  If  that  be  so,  Saharas
would do well to obtain a confirmation from the Bank of China to the  effect
that the valuation reports prepared  in  respect  of  the  three  properties
mentioned above by CBRE and JLL, have been prepared at the instance  of  the
Bank of China and that the said valuation reports have been accepted by  the
Bank to be correct. This could lend  re-assurance  to  the  Court  that  the
value/stakes  held  by  Saharas  in  these  properties  are  sought  to   be
transferred on the basis of the  true  market  value  of  the  said  assets.
Needful shall be done expeditiously,  but  not  later  than  one  week  from
today.”


2.    Saharas  have  now  made  the  present  applications  seeking  certain
directions. In I.As No. 8-9 of 2014, Shri Subrata Roy Sahara has prayed  for
temporary/conditional release from judicial custody for a period of 15  days
or so to meet his nonagenarian and ailing mother as also  for  taking  steps
for compliance with the order of this Court  dated  26th  March,  2014.  The
applicant has, inter alia, stated that his mother Smt.  Chhabi  Roy  who  is
aged over 93 years suffers from several ailments  which  complicate  matters
in view of her being in  a  fragile  emotional  state.  The  applicant  Shri
Subrata Roy Sahara is also, according to the  averments,  not  keeping  good
health requiring medical attention. The application,  however,  stops  short
of elaborating the medical condition of  the  applicant  Shri  Sahara.  More
importantly, the application seeks release of Shri Sahara on parole  with  a
view to negotiating deals  directly  with  the  purchasers  who  have  shown
interest in the purchase of the property  being  offered  for  sale  by  the
Saharas.

3.    In the accompanying I.As Nos.10, 11 & 12 of 2014 Saharas  have  prayed
for  permission  to  obtain  a  bank  guarantee  of  Rs.5,000/-  crores   by
leveraging the three overseas hotel properties by way of sale,  mortgage  in
the light of the Bank of China’s consent  to  such  sale  or  transfer,  and
certification that the valuation reports were prepared at  the  instance  of
the Bank and accepted by it. The Saharas  also  seek  permission  for  sale,
hypothecation, mortgage/leverage the land  owned  by  them  and  situate  in
Versova.

4.    Appearing  for  the  applicants,  Dr.  Rajiv  Dhavan,  learned  senior
counsel, argued that the applicants had, pursuant to our  order  dated  29th
May, 2014, addressed a joint letter to the Bank of China on 2nd  June,  2014
requesting the Bank of China to confirm the information sought for  by  this
Court.  The Bank of  China  had,  on  receipt  of  the  said  communication,
consented to the proposed sale of the stakes held by Saharas  in  the  hotel
properties subject to  the  repayment  of  the  amount  outstanding  against
Saharas. It had also confirmed the loan amounts and  the  valuation  reports
as required by the Order passed  by  this  Court.   Our  attention  was,  in
support of that submission, drawn by the learned  counsel  to  letter  dated
3rd June, 2014 sent by the Bank  of  China  to  the  Saharas  conveying  the
Bank’s consent to the sale and direct or indirect disposal  by  the  Saharas
Group of its interests in the three hotels subject  to  the  condition  that
the sale proceeds are  sufficient  to  and  the  same  are  applied  towards
repayment in full of the outstanding principal, interest and  other  amounts
including any applicable prepayment premia, fees, out of  pocket  costs  and
expenses of Facility Agents and lenders owned by Sahara Group in  connection
with the loans obtained from the Bank. The letter sets out  the  outstanding
amount under the Sahara Group loans as on 2nd June, 2014  in  the  following
words:

“2)   Amounts outstanding under the Sahara Group Loans as at 02 June 2014

A.   Amounts outstanding under the Sahara Group Loans as  at  02  June  2014
are:



|As at 02 June 2014 |GHH Loan            |Plaza/Dream Loan      |
|Loan outstanding   |£289,750,000.0      |US$427,241,303.00     |
|balance            |                    |                      |
|Accrued Interest   |£985,469.20         |US$244,036.67         |
|Prepayment Fee     |£2,897,500.00       |$8,544,826.07         |
|Libor Breakage     |Approximately       |Approximately         |
|Costs              |£11,873,16, final   |£9,740.96, final      |
|                   |amount to be        |amount to be confirmed|
|                   |confirmed at the    |at the prepayment date|
|                   |prepayment date     |                      |
|Legal Fees         |Approximately       |Approximately £15,000,|
|                   |£15,000 final amount|final amount to be    |
|                   |to be confirmed at  |confirmed at the      |
|                   |the prepayment date |prepayment date       |


Please note that the exact amounts  required  to  prepay  the  Sahara  Group
Loans will depend on when the prepayment is made.  Whilst the above  numbers
are accurate as at 2 June 2014 (Except that the  Libor  Breakage  Costs  and
Legal fees are estimates), they are subject to change.”



5.    The Bank of China has also, in the same communication, confirmed  that
valuation reports were instructed and accepted by the  Facility  Agents  for
loan security purposes in regard to the three properties  in  question.  The
bank says :

“Latest Valuation reports prepared pursuant to the Sahara Group loans

The following Valuation reports were instructed  and  accepted  by  Facility
Agent for loan security purposes:

Plaza Hotel Valuation Report prepared by CBRE dated 27  Oct  2013  with  the
Market Value of US$592,000,000;

Dream Downtown Hotel Valuation Report prepared by CBRE  dated  29  Oct  2013
with the Market Value of US$252,000,000

Grosvenor House Hotel Valuation Report prepared by Jones Lang LaSalle  (JLL)
dated 26 February 2014 with the Market Value of £516,000, 000

We understand that you will share a copy of this  letter  with  the  Supreme
Court of India.”



6.    It was in the above context, Dr. Dhavan submitted  that  (a)  Bank  of
China had no objection to the proposed sales/transfer of the stakes held  by
the Saharas in the three hotel properties  and  (b)  the  valuation  reports
indicating the value  of  the  assets  in  question  were  prepared  on  the
instructions of the Bank of China and had  been  accepted  by  it  for  loan
security purposes. Dr. Dhavan argued that the  valuation  reports  had  been
prepared in  the  ordinary  course  of  business  long  before  the  present
controversy arose and were truly indicative  of  the  market  value  of  the
properties. It was also submitted that the reports were prepared by  reputed
international  valuers  after  a  thorough  and  analytical  application  of
recognised methods of valuation of  a  going  establishment  like  a  hotel.
There was, therefore, no basis for  any  apprehension  that  the  properties
proposed to be sold may be sold at a  price  lesser  than  the  true  market
value with a view to defrauding the creditors or  siphoning  away  the  sale
consideration. Dr. Dhavan argued that while the encashment of FDs  and  sale
of  bonds  and  securities  had  already  resulted  in  the  deposit  of   a
substantial amount of over Rs.3,000/- crores in SEBI-Sahara Refund  account,
sale of the three hotel properties would enable the Saharas to make  up  the
deficit amount of Rs.2000/- crores besides helping Saharas  arrange  a  bank
guarantee for another Rs.5,000/- crores, as directed by this Court.

7.    Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel  appearing  for  SEBI,  on
the other hand, contended that the prayer made by the  contemnors/applicants
in I.As. No.8 and 9 for release on parole was not justified  on  the  ground
stated.  The material on record did not, according to the  learned  counsel,
suggest that Shri Subrata Roy Sahara had  any  serious  medical  problem  to
justify his release on parole nor can his release on parole be justified  on
the ground for facilitating negotiations with  the  prospective  purchasers.
It was submitted that Saharas had not come forward to disclose the names  of
the prospective buyers with whom they proposed  to  hold  such  negotiations
nor was there any concrete proposal at present under their consideration.

8.    As regards sale of the three hotel properties, Mr.  Arvind  P.  Datar,
did not deny that though the Bank of China has  a  substantial  charge  over
the said properties but according to the valuation reports the market  value
of the property is considerably higher than  the  outstanding  loan  amount,
thereby accepting the plea of the applicants  that  if  the  properties  are
sold, sufficient surplus would be available  even  after  discharge  of  the
Bank loan that could be utilised for deposit with SEBI and for furnishing  a
bank guarantee as demanded by this Court. Moreover,  the  valuation  reports
prepared by leading and reputed international valuers  were  not  questioned
by Mr. Arvind P. Datar nor was  it  suggested  that  the  reports  had  been
procured only for use in these proceedings.

9.    We have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made  at
the bar. The contemnors stand committed to jail by the Order of  this  Court
dated 4th March, 2014 on  account  of  their  failure  to  comply  with  the
directions of this Court’s Orders dated 31st August, 2012 and 5th  December,
2012 and those issued on 25th February, 2013 in I.A. No.67 of 2013 in  Civil
Appeal No.9813 of 2011 and  I.A  No.5  in  Civil  Appeal  No.9833  of  2011.
Interim bail order passed by this Court on 26th March,  2014  requires  them
to deposit Rs.10,000/- crores, out of which Rs.5,000/- crores has to  be  in
cash  while  the  balance  has  to  be  secured  by  bank  guarantee  of   a
nationalised bank furnished in favour of  SEBI.   It  was  with  a  view  to
enabling the contemnors to comply with the said direction  that  this  Court
had by Order dated 4th June, 2014 lifted the embargo placed  upon  operation
of the bank accounts and sale/transfer  of  immovable  assets  held  by  the
Saharas qua nine properties referred to in  the  said  order.  Saharas  have
since then deposited an amount of more than Rs.3,000/- crores with  SEBI  by
encashment of FDs, Bonds and securities.

10.   Saharas have also out of the nine properties referred  to  above  sold
the property situate in Ahmedabad for a sum of  Rs.4,11,82,55,138/-  (Rupees
Four Hundred and Eleven Crores Eighty  Two  Lacs  Fifty  Five  Thousand  One
Hundred and Thirty Eight only). The  remaining  eight  properties,  however,
remain to be sold or encumbered. We had in the light of the above asked  Dr.
Dhavan whether the proposed sale/transfer of the offshore  hotel  properties
was essential when no less than eight  other  properties  apart  from  Aamby
Valley (Pune) remained to be sold or encumbered for raising funds  necessary
for compliance with the order of this Court.  Dr. Dhavan argued that it  may
be  easier  for  the  contemnors-Saharas  to  leverage  the  overseas  hotel
properties for deposit  of  the  deficit  of  around  Rs.2000/-  crores  and
arranging a bank guarantee of Rs.5,000/- crores in  comparison  to  sale  or
transfer of property situate within the country which may take a  relatively
longer period leading to continued incarceration of the contemnors in  jail.
 It was submitted  that  so  long  as  it  was  ensured  that  the  offshore
properties are sold for the market value they command,  the  Saharas  should
have the liberty to do so.

11.   There is, in our  opinion,  merit  in  the  contention  urged  by  Dr.
Dhavan.  What is important is that the properties held by  the  Saharas  are
sold at their market value and the  sale  proceeds,  subject  to  any  other
directions issued by this Court, utilised for compliance with the  terms  of
the conditional bail order issued by this Court.   It  is  evident  that  if
sale of properties situate within the country is likely to  take  time,  the
contemnors may be exposed to a longer period of incarceration on account  of
their failure to comply with the directions of this  Court.   On  the  other
hand, quicker the compliance with the directions of the  Court’s  Order  for
deposit of cash and bank guarantee, the easier would be the way out of  jail
for them. The  anxiety  on  the  part  of  the  Saharas  generally  and  the
contemnors in particular to sell  the  offshore  properties  is,  therefore,
understandable especially when such sale and transfer is not only  going  to
help Saharas in liquidating the outstanding loan amount payable to the  Bank
of China but leave sufficient surplus with the Saharas to not  only  deposit
the balance of Rs.2,000/- crores approximately that needs to be  immediately
paid by them but also furnish a bank  guarantee  for  a  sum  of  Rs.5,000/-
crores, as directed. We, therefore, see no legal  impediment  in  permitting
the sale of the offshore properties owned by Saharas.  This is  particularly
so when not only do we have the valuation reports of the said properties  on
record prepared as they are by internationally reputed valuers but also  the
concurrence of SEBI for the sale of such properties at  that  value  subject
to the condition that the sale consideration shall as far as possible be  at
the estimated value of such properties, less, at the  most  by  5%  of  such
value.  We are, mindful of the fact that Saharas have sold the  property  at
Ahmedabad at more than three times the circle rates of  such  property.   No
such rates are, however, available or prescribed  for  offshore  properties.
We shall, therefore, have to  go  only  by  the  valuation  reports  of  the
valuers as the basis for such proposed sale/transfer subject to a margin  of
5% which we have indicated above. In case the offer received  is  lesser  by
more than 5%, they will seek prior approval of the Court.

12.   We may incidentally mention at this stage that Dr. Dhavan  had  sought
a clarification of our Order dated 4th June, 2014 inasmuch as  in  the  para
23 (iii) (b) of the  said  order,  we  had  stated  that  the  sale  of  the
properties referred to in the order shall not be for an amount  lesser  than
the circle rate for such properties or the estimated value indicated by  the
Saharas whereas in the operative portion of the said order we had  permitted
sale at a price that is not lower than the circle rate prescribed  for  such
properties.  Having regard, however, to the  experience  that  Saharas  have
had with the sale of properties in Ahmedabad which fetched more  than  three
times the circle rates prescribed for the same, we are of the view that  the
actual market value of the property held by Saharas is many times more  than
the circle rates for such property. This is evident not only from  the  sale
transaction relating to Ahmadabad property but also the  fact  that  Saharas
have themselves estimated the value of the properties much higher  than  the
circle rates for the same.  In the circumstances, we see  no  difficulty  in
clarifying that the sale of the remainder of the properties  which  we  have
permitted to be sold by our order dated 4th June, 2014 shall not  be  lesser
than the estimated value of the properties given by Saharas less by no  more
than 5% of such estimated value. In case the offer(s) received  is/are  less
by more than 5%, prior approval of the Court will have to be sought.

13.   That brings us to the question whether the contemnors can  be  granted
parole as prayed for in the applications?  We regret to say that we do  not,
for the present, see any justification for us to take a view different  from
the one taken in our order dated 4th June, 2014.  There  is  nothing  before
us to show that Shri Subrata Roy Sahara suffers  from  any  serious  medical
condition. At any rate, we expect the jail doctors to keep a  check  on  his
medical condition and provide necessary medical aid as  and  when  required.
The alternative ground urged for the grant of parole  also  does  not  stand
closer scrutiny. There is, at present, no  concrete  proposal  with  Saharas
for sale of the properties situate in India or abroad that may call for  any
negotiation by Shri Subrata Roy Sahara.  While it  may  be  true  that  such
negotiations cannot  be  said  to  be  advisable  when  properties  of  such
magnitude as in the instant case are sought to  be  sold,  yet  it  is  pre-
mature for us to make any arrangement to facilitate  any  such  negotiations
either by directing  release  of  Shri  Subrata  Roy  Sahara  on  parole  or
otherwise.  We may make it  clear  that  if  a  situation  arises  in  which
negotiations become essential, this Court may  consider  passing  orders  to
facilitate such negotiations. Beyond that we do not  consider  it  necessary
or proper to say anything at this stage.

14.   In the result :

1.    I.As. No.8-9 of 2014 in Contempt Petitions (C) No.412 and 413 of  2012
are dismissed.

2.    I.As. No.10-12 of 2014 in Contempt Petitions (C) No.412 of  2012,  413
of 2012 and 260 of 2013 are allowed to the extent that three offshore  hotel
properties  owned  by  Saharas  are  allowed  to  be  transferred,  sold  or
encumbered subject to the  condition  that  the  entire  sale  consideration
received by the Saharas after repayment of the loan outstanding towards  the
Bank of China is deposited with SEBI towards compliance with the  directions
contained in the conditional bail  order  dated  26.3.2014  passed  by  this
Court. The excess amount, if any, shall be deposited by  the  Saharas  in  a
separate  account  to  await  orders  from  this   Court   regarding   their
utilisation. The sale of the offshore properties shall not  be  at  a  price
lesser than the value estimated by CBRE and  JLL  for  the  said  properties
reduced at the most by 5% of such value.

3.    We clarify that sale of remainder  of  the  properties  which  Saharas
have been allowed to transfer, sell or encumber in terms of our order  dated
4th June, 2014 shall not be at a price less than the estimated value of  the
said properties reduced at the most by 5% of such estimate.
4.    We had by our order dated 4th June, 2014 requested Shri F.S.  Nariman,
Senior Advocate, to assist the Court  as  an  Amicus  Curiae.  We  had  also
permitted Shri Nariman to associate two juniors of his choice to  brief  him
in the matter. Shri Nariman as in terms of a communication dated  5th  June,
2014 regretted his inability to assist the Court as  he  had  also  appeared
for Saharas upto 31st August, 2012 when the main judgment was  delivered  in
the case.  That Shri Nariman had appeared on  behalf  of  Saharas  had  been
brought to our notice also but only after we had  pronounced  the  order  in
the Court on 4th June, 2014 by which he was appointed as Amicus Curiae.   It
is obvious that having appeared as  a  counsel  on  behalf  of  Saharas  Mr.
Nariman  cannot  possibly  take  up  the  assignment  offered  to  him.  We,
therefore, have no option but to modify our order dated 4th  June,  2014  to
the extent that in place of Shri F.S. Nariman, Senior Advocate,  we  request
Shri Shekhar Naphade, Senior Advocate, to assist the Court in  the  case  as
an Amicus Curiae. The terms and conditions  of  Shri  Naphade’s  appointment
shall, however, remain  the  same  as  were  stipulated  for  Shri  Nariman.



                                                          ………………….……….…..…J.
       (T.S. THAKUR)


                                                          ………………….……….…..…J.
       (ANIL R. DAVE)


                                                          ………………….……….…..…J.
       (A.K. SIKRI)
New Delhi
July 22, 2014

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.