Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
I.A. Nos. 101-103 in Contempt Petitions (C) No.412 -413 of 2012 in Civil Appeals No. 9813 and 9833 of 2011 and Contempt Petition (C) No.260 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No.8643 of 2012
The Hon’ble Supreme Court on June 4, 2014 observed that the directions issued by this Court vide its order dated August 31, 2012 directing Sahara Group to refund around INR 17,400 crore to their investors with an interest of 15% has not been complied with, despite sufficient opportunities to the contemnors.
The Hon’ble Court further observed that the contemnors had adopted dilatory tactics to delay the proceedings before the SEBI, the High Court and even before this Court.
The Hon’ble Court further directed the Sahara Group to transfer, sale and/or mortgage its properties at fair and reasonable price, not lesser than the circle value of the properties fixed for the area where such property is located, to ensure compliance of the order dated August 31, 2012.
Rishipal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 1300 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2447 of 2013)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated July 2, 2014 observed that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the tests to be applied is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the case.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the Courts have to see whether the continuation of the complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage of justice or when the Court comes to a conclusion that quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice, then the Court can exercise the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.