BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI

            Appeal No. 214 of 2012  

    Date of Decision: 20.12.2012      

Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited
(formerly also known as Sahara India “C
Junxion Corporation Limited),
1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj,
Lucknow

                                      … … Appellant   

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),
Mumbai- 400 051

                                 …… R   

Mr. Jatin Pore, Advocate with Mr. Parag Khandhar, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Prateek Seksaria, Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody and Mr. Dinesh Mishra,

Advocates for the Respondent.

CORAM : P.K. Malhotra, Member & Presiding Officer (Off g. )
S.S.N. Moorthy, Member

Per : P.K. Malhotra, (Oral)

This order will dispose of two appeals no. 214 and 215 of 2012 which arise out

of common set of facts and against a common order. Prayer in both these appeals is

seeking extension of time for submission of documents/information before the

Securities and Exchange Board of India (the Board) as per the directions given by the

Hon’ble upreme Court in its judgment and order dated August 31, 2012 in Civil

Appeal nos. 9813 and 9833 of 2012.

2. During the pendency of these appeals, the appellants had approached this

Tribunal with another appeal [No. 221 of 2012] praying that the respondent Board may

be directed to accept pay order amounting to ` 5120 crores for repaying the amount to

the OFCD subscribers. The said appeal was dismissed by this Tribunal as premature and

2

not maintainable. The appellant had thereafter approached the Hon ’b le Supreme Court

and HonSeCbitorde dated December 5, 2012, has already

extended the time for filing the documents in support of the refund made to any person,

as claimed by the appellant, by a period of 15 days. Since the HonSprem e Court

has already given a specific direction in the matter, the appeals before this Tribunal

have become infructuous. In any case, since the time limit for submitting the documents

to Bohasbeenspecified y e ’SCanr for

extension of such time should also be made before the Apex Court and not before this

Tribunal.

Since we are dismissing the appeals as infructuous, we are not going into the

issue of maintainability as argued by the respondent Board.

Both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.

                        Sd/-                      
                        P.K.Malhotra  
                             Member &  
                        Presiding Officer  (Offg. )  




      Sd/-  
        S.S.N. Moorthy  
              Member  

20.12.2012
Prepared & Compared By: Pk