Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

Transparency and Efficiency Are Paramount: Supreme Court Constitutes High-Powered Sale Committee to Ensure Investor Refunds

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Justices invoke Article 142, direct SEBI to liquidate Sai Group assets and prioritize compensation for defrauded investors.

The Supreme Court has directed the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to liquidate the assets of the Sai Group of Companies, ensuring the proceeds are distributed to genuine investors. The decision, rendered by Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, emphasizes the need for a transparent and efficient refund process and underscores the court’s commitment to achieving complete justice for affected investors.

Petitioners Balasaheb Keshawrao Bhapkar, his wife, and son, the founder-directors of the Sai Group of Companies, sought directions for SEBI to liquidate their attached assets and refund the proceeds to investors. The Sai Group, comprising entities like Sai Prasad Properties Ltd., Sai Prasad Foods Ltd., and others, faced allegations of illegal fund mobilization. Various regulatory actions were taken, including SEBI’s orders restraining the companies from collecting money and attaching their properties. Multiple FIRs were filed across several states under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, IPC, and other relevant statutes.

The Supreme Court recognized SEBI’s efforts but acknowledged the complexity and challenges in conducting timely public auctions. The court noted the necessity of a dedicated committee to streamline the process. “Despite SEBI’s bona fide pursuits, the liquidation of assets through time-bound public auctions presents numerous challenges,” the court observed.

To address these challenges, the court constituted a High-Powered Sale Committee (HPSC) led by former Supreme Court judge Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt. The HPSC is tasked with auctioning the assets, creating a property database, and ensuring that investor claims are satisfied transparently and efficiently. The court granted the HPSC civil court powers to expedite the process.

The court detailed the HPSC’s responsibilities in identifying investors, determining refund amounts, and managing an escrow account for the sale proceeds. The refund process will be widely publicized to ensure transparency. “The HPSC shall ensure a transparent and efficient refund process,” the court emphasized, highlighting the importance of investor confidence in the system.

Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the court underscored its commitment to complete justice, justifying the constitution of the HPSC given the exceptional circumstances. The court also highlighted the petitioners’ prolonged incarceration and the investors’ decade-long wait for refunds as critical factors in its decision.

Justice Surya Kant remarked, “The creation of the HPSC is a necessary step to ensure justice for the investors who have waited far too long for their rightful refunds.” The judgment also stated, “The HPSC shall operate with full transparency, ensuring the highest standards of integrity and efficiency in the liquidation process.”

The Supreme Court’s order to liquidate the Sai Group’s assets and refund investors marks a significant step towards resolving a long-standing financial debacle. By establishing the HPSC, the court aims to ensure a fair, transparent, and efficient process, reinforcing the judiciary’s commitment to upholding investor rights and maintaining market integrity. The landmark decision sets a precedent for handling similar cases in the future, highlighting the importance of regulatory vigilance and judicial intervention in protecting investors.

Date of Decision: 15th July 2024

Balasaheb Keshawrao Bhapkar & Ors. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

 

Similar News