SEBI’s order on SICCL, Sahara India issues statement

After the recent SEBI crackdown on Sahara India Pariwar company Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd (SICCL), the conglomerate has released an official statement. Calling the SEBI order “against the spirit of natural law”, the Subrata Roy led group, in its statement, has claimed that every action on part of SICCL was taken after obtaining due permission from the departments concerned. Here’s what the statement reads:

Post SEBI’s order on SICCL, Sahara India issues statement
Post SEBI’s order on SICCL, Sahara India issues statement

We consider the recent order passed by SEBI as totally against the spirit of natural law. While taking decision, SEBI once again has overlooked the hard facts and situations that very much prevailed at the time when Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited (SICCL) issued OFCDs in 1998. We will raise the matter at the appropriate platform.

  1. In 1998, SICCL had taken the written permission from ROC, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, for the first time, for issuing OFCDs. Then we got two more such permissions in 2009 for Sahara Real Estate and Sahara Housing from the competent authorities, regarding which a case is going on in Supreme Court. On our part, everything was done as per law.
  2. SICCL has already discharged all its OFCD liabilities except for Rs 17 crore as outstanding OFCD liability towards 54,804 members. The TDS deducted on interest paid has been deposited with I-Tax Department. Hence the order makes it a case of double payment for the liability, which SICCL has already discharged.
  3. Our issue opened on 6.7.1998 while first proviso to section 67(3) (where there was no restriction of 50 and above issue) of the Companies Act, 1956 was inserted through amendment w.e.f. 13.12.2000 with prospective effect. Even sections 117B and 117C were inserted through amendment w.e.f. 13.12.2000. In view of this position of law Supreme Court in its order dated 31.8.2012 observed that OFCD issue by SICCL was made in 1998 and it was before the amendment of section 67(3) by Companies Amendment Act, 2000, hence, ROC and not SEBI had jurisdiction in respect of the said OFCDs. That was the valid reason that Supreme Court did not act anyway against SICCL. So this order of SEBI is against the observation and conclusion drawn by Supreme Court. Then, we wonder, how SEBI can do this!
  4. SEBI has raised objection and clearly stated that all payments are to be done (though we have repaid) through banking channel. It must be recalled here that, till 4 years back, as per the statement of World Bank and Reserve Bank of India, 50-60% of Indians did not have bank accounts. In Sahara India, we have all very small depositors who have never gone to banks and banks have never come to them. They deposit small – small amounts in cash and take the repayments in cash.

After all, as per the law of the Government of India, then anybody and everybody were allowed to deposit or take repayment in cash up to Rs 20,000 and our all payments were strictly as per law. Now the limit is of Rs 10,000.

We have inculcated the habit of savings amongst the poor people throughout the country. Had we not been there to collect money every day from doorsteps then that money would have gone for alcohol, gambling and many other such vices. Sahara Group should have been awarded for the above like in other countries. In Bangladesh, for financial inclusion activity somebody got noble prize, informs a press release.

Source: SICCL


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here