The chief justice of India Altamas Kabir yesterday told off senior advocate Arvind Dattar who, in the matter of SEBI V Sahara, had objected to his passing an order contradictory to an order passed by a two judge bench of the court - before which bench the matter is still pending.

A bench of justices KS Radhakrishnan and JS Khehar had on 31 August ordered two Sahara group companies to refund the Rs 24,000 crore they had collected through optional fully convertible debentures, to SEBI with 15 per cent interest by 30 November, because Sahara had violated regulatory norms.

Yesterday Kabir’s bench, also comprising justices SS Nijjar and J Chelameswar, allowed the Sahara group to complete the payment of refund to SEBI in two months’ time, ending in the first week of February, contrary to the 31 August order.

The bench reasoned that it was allowing Sahara’s application to protect the interest of investors. The investors, however, were not given a hearing before this order.

Dattar, appearing for SEBI, insisted that propriety called for the matter to be heard by the bench before which it was pending, and that Kabir must record this submission in the court’s order.

"We will record what we feel to record. We cannot record what you say,” shot back Kabir.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh insisted that the investors’ and Sahara’s application should not be disposed of without hearing the investors, which suggestion was again dismissed by Kabir in, reportedly, an “angry tone”. [Hindustan Times]

Singh was appearing for the Universal Investors Association, and wanted the court to take up a writ petition filed on behalf of the investors. Kabir’s bench rejected the plea saying that the investors had no rights since they were not party to the main petition. [The Hindu]

Legally India Supreme Court postcard writer Court Witness tweeted: “Would completely understand if both or one of Radhakrishnan & Khehar are supremely upset with Kabir for undermining them in this way.”

experts & views

Click to show 4 comments
at your own risk
(alt+shift+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
refresh Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Sort chronologically
1
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 lawyer 06 Dec 12, 21:43
Poor conduct, very poor conduct. Tsk tsk tsk. Judges nowadays have become too arrogant and kabir's behaviour is reprehensible. Higher courts routinely slam senior IAS IPS officers as if it is their birthright. A court officer is also a public servant and kabir and the others of his ilk would do well to rememver that. Why does he not channel his energies into explaining how his son was dubiously made a special public Prosecuter instead?
Reply Report to LI
2
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Symbi 09 Dec 12, 10:48
When this matter was going on i was personally present there, i have seen Hon'ble CJ Altamas kabir a very kind person in such a angry mood which is very rare occasion
Reply Report to LI
3
Show?
Like +0 Object -1 rk 10 Dec 12, 13:02
Justice Kabir is conducted in rightful manner. the idea is to get investor's there money back. wondering why no one is taking contempt against sahara for newspaper advertisements when matter is still pending. well it is in appropriate to talk about justice kabir or his son that way. he comes from reputed family. BTW if you need masala then there is a SC judge whose son had gone for sky jump in Spain. now that boy is few year old lawyer who is always on sabbatical and daddy makes too much noise. there private car also has privileged number of Delhi 001.i know u will edit my comment. go ahaed.
Reply Report to LI
4
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Concerned 10 Dec 12, 13:23
@lawyer: Whatever be the allegations against Justice Kabir's son's appointment be, do you think that it is proper that you raise that issue in a matter exclusively involving Justice Kabir's discharge duty?
It is to mean that every time the Bar or anyone feels that they are wronged by some order or observation by Justice Kabir, they will raise this completely irrelevant issue?

Kian, please exercise some sensible moderation.
Reply Report to LI

refreshSort chronologically Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments.