Steven Paul “Steve” Jobs (born February 24, 1955) is an American business magnate and inventor.

He is co-founder, chairman, and former chief executive officer of Apple Inc. Jobs also previously served as chief executive of Pixar Animation Studios; he became a member of the board of directors of The Walt Disney Company in 2006, following the acquisition of Pixar by Disney. He’s a composite leader in an extreme way, someone to be both greatly feared and greatly admired. Jobs dual personality that his “rare blend of the charismatic and tyrannical” has been the “key to Apple’s success”. The reason why Steve Jobs is hero to me and millions of others is that though many of his creations were original, expensive and stylish, they improved productivity and enhanced pleasure. Without the mouse this column would have taken longer to write and robbed me a little of the joy.

My Role Model “Steve Jobs”
Posted: August 27, 2011 in News

Steven Paul “Steve” Jobs (born February 24, 1955) is an American business magnate and inventor. He is co-founder, chairman, and former chief executive officer of Apple Inc. Jobs also previously served as chief executive of Pixar Animation Studios; he became a member of the board of directors of The Walt Disney Company in 2006, following the acquisition of Pixar by Disney. He was credited in the 1995 movie Toy Storyas an executive producer. In the late 1970s, Jobs, with Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, Mike Markkula,and others, designed, developed, and marketed one of the first commercially successful lines of personal computers, the Apple II series. In the early 1980s, Jobs was among the first to see the commercial potential of the mousedriven graphical user interface which led to the creation of the Macintosh. After losing a power struggle with the board of directors in 1984, Jobs resigned from Apple and founded NeXT, a computer platform development company specializing in the higher education and business markets. Apple’s subsequent 1996 buyout of NeXT brought Jobs back to the company he co-founded, and he served as its CEO from 1997 until 2011. In 1986, he acquired the computer graphics division of Lucasfilm Ltd which was spun off as Pixar Animation Studios. He remained CEO and majority shareholder at 50.1% until its acquisition by The Walt Disney company in 2006. Consequently Jobs became Disney’s largest individual shareholder at 7% and a member of Disney’s Board of Directors.

.Jobs’ history in business has contributed much to the symbolic image of the idiosyncratic. His work driving forward the development of products that are both functional and elegant has earned him a devoted following. emphasizing the importance of design and understanding the crucial role aesthetics play in public appeal. individualistic Silicon Valley entrepreneur.

sports . EDITOR-IN-CHIEF. 2013. THE SUNDAY INDIAN | Issue Dated: April 21. That the man is a visionary – his mammoth investments in media.The unputdownable! Subrata Roy Sahara should come out winning on all fronts in the current face-off with SEBI! And why the erroneous Supreme Court judgment against Sahara goes beyond Parliamentary Acts and is being misused by SEBI to its own benefit! BY Arindam Chaudhuri ARINDAM CHAUDHURI. hotel. housing. New Delhi Tags : Subrata Roy Sahara | SEBI | Sahar group | Supreme Court order | Allahabad Hogh Court | K M Abraham | OFCD | There are a few things about Subrata Roy Sahara that even his harshest critics accept.

So every time Subrata Roy Sahara and his likes attempt to tread the path of diligent and astute effort – assuming the same equated to returns – they‟re pulled down acerbically and vindictively by the group representing the old. hand in hand with the English media. criminally and illegally. would be loath to have such an unabashed community representative of workers amongst their well „oiled‟ and „greased‟ group. That his open assertions of being a patriot have their weight in the various behemoth social initiatives undertaken by his group – with no apologies to the slanted English media in India which. no surprises then that the same English media chose to ignore reporting how sprightly he was while meeting UK Prime Minister David Cameron a few weeks back in a closed door meeting discussing educational and research initiatives). given that they‟ve made the money on the blood of Indians). A group that has issued OFCDs (Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures) since the year 2001 with all relevant government permissions. they‟ve had a horde of regulatory. police and judicial bodies running up their door to initiate the so-called enquiries and „search‟. but many billionaires borne out of the excesses of the License Raj era (I call most of them „blood billionaires‟. to ensure that there is no new honest and ethical claimant to their industry space. That the License Raj era spewed out a few handfuls of family businesses that shamelessly chewed away the very idea of India. criminally sucking it hollow by monopolising industries. in cahoots with a similar group of corrupt bureaucrats (regulators included) and politicians. suddenly gets a prohibitory order from SEBI in November 2010 against the OFCDs issued by two unlisted group companies (Sahara Housing Investment . You see. hypocritically slanders anyone who represents the „other‟ India (lest you should forget. Look around and you‟ll see many examples strewn across India of how honest upstarts have been trampled upon by the powers that be before they could gain ground – wherever there has been anyone attempting to improve the condition of India. I feel. encouraged by corruption soaked politicians – and encouraging them in return. this group believes that only they know how India should be run and by whom. And yes. it was this very media that shamelessly reported gossip a few years ago about him being „critically ill‟ and on his deathbed. have fought and will fight tooth and nail. That Subrata Roy Sahara titles himself as the Managing Worker of his group only adds to the ire of India‟s caustic bourgeoisie. That this venomous combination over the decades led to a jaundiced India that today has hundreds of millions of illiterate people below the poverty line. tax. which. feudal India. That the same group of blood billionaires. and which has regularly submitted all details as required by the concerned government authorities.and other industries being compelling evidence. The current face-off that Subrata Roy Sahara has with SEBI actually exemplifies all this too well. especially if such an entrepreneur were from the proletariat. There are a few things about India that even its damnedest supporters don‟t deny. that the man religiously knows his numbers and has a financial acumen that is better than the combined intellect of all Indian regulators in the industries where he operates. that has no global brands to speak of.

noted.. former Chief Justice of India.” C. were not far to see. in November 2010.” Two days later. commented that as these were unlisted companies and had not filed a draft red herring prospectus with SEBI. on the basis of a contention that the offer for right issue of shares made by the 1st petitioner company can be deemed as a public issue. K. Ahmadi.“ Given all this. Mohan Parasaran. in its official communique to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in June 2010 with respect to a case dealing with a Reliance Industries‟ complaint. says. the Allahabad High Court stayed this order. P. True to its past. the Supreme Court – which Sahara subsequently approached – advised SEBI to ensure that Sahara is allowed a fair chance to defend their case to SEBI. the Department of Legal Affairs. Kurdukar. The Central Government remains the regulating authority for the company. M. Similar was the opinion of S. Government of India.Corporation Ltd.” The Additional Solicitor General of India. Abdul Rehim mentions. mentioned.” It should be noted that Parasaran is now the Solicitor General of India.” In the Kunnamkulam Paper Mills vs.” Ministry of Corporate Affairs. confirmed with extreme clarity after documenting multiple pages of logic. former Presiding Officer.. was getting too hot to handle for the parties in power and they needed diversionary tactics? SEBI was undone by some scrupulous individuals within the system itself. Some economists I talked to called this a kangaroo forum order.4140/LS/2010). The reasons. even if it exceeds listed public companies and companies intending to list. companies that are not listed and have no intention to list]. A. gave an opinion that the company‟s OFCD issue was not governed by SEBI‟s rules and regulations. .. SEBI has no jurisdiction over unlisted companies like the Sahara Group of Companies. in an official noting. “The issuance of OFCD [by] the petitioner company aft er the registration with the Registrar of Companies has been permissible under law.. SEBI‟s own submission in the oft quoted Kalpana Bhandari case (Mumbai High Court. SEBI had. What changed between April and November 2010 that led SEBI to issue such expansive orders without app ropriate investigation? Especially when.. the Minister of Corporate Affairs. “. honourable judge C. Mumbai. had given an opinion in 2010. former Judge. as per them. in his official opinion note dated February 8. Was it that the Commonwealth Games scam and the telecom scam (both of which reached their zenith in midto-late-2010).cannot be said to have gone in the fold of SEBI by merely becoming a group company of an unrelated separate company which has no intention to get its shares listed. but by the Central Government.. any complaint with respect to these two companies should be handled by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.. SEBI cannot usurp into the jurisdiction vested on the Central Government. they had and have no role to play in the case of unlisted companies that have no intention to list in the future. “I agree with [the] Additional Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran. which are not intending to get themselves listed.” SEBI. and Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. with due interest. Veerappa Moily. SEBI case in Kerala High Court (2009).. In December 2010. SEBI disregarded all the expert opinions from within the government itself and brought out an elongated order against the two Sahara companies in June 2011. 2011. Achutan. is made to a select class of people). demanding that they immediately pay back all the moneys collected through OFCDs. “SEBI‟s primary mandate is over listed restricted by the provisions of the SEBI Act. “The company in the given case being [an] unlisted company and not intending to get its securities listed. 2003). mentioned that “SEBI‟s jurisdiction. Although this stay was vacated a few months later. “For the reasons mentioned above and in my considered view.In respect of matters relating to companies which are not coming within the description of Section 55A(a) and (b) [that is. “The SEBI has no role (if an offer of specified securities. Supreme Court. as per SEBI‟s own rules.) – and this despite the fact that just seven months before that. in its written submission to the Allahabad High Court in 2010. Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT). noted in its official report (FTS No. through its own communication to Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

.” . K. the so called „order‟ was passed by one man called K. on June 1.. K. K. the Ministry of Finance responded. This also exposed his grave conflict of interest and inability to maintain a neutral point of view while considering all facets of the case. M. M. told him. “The recent allegations by Abraham are defamatory. Abraham and not technically by a board of SEBI members. Abraham passed this order with only a month left for his own deputation ending.. Numerous complaints were received against Abraham from several sources.. complaining childishly. Abraham reached a conclusion that U. But the best was yet to come..” This was a veiled accusation at Sahara.Firstly. Sinha.. Sinha was “being subjected to undue pressure by vested interests. The complaints ranged from abuse of power to corruption and purchase of a flat at a concessional rate from an entity that had benefited from the sale of office space to National Stock Exchange. M. Abraham wrote a paranoid letter to the Prime Minister of India. Clearly. K.. after the Allahabad High Court gave the go-ahead signal to SEBI to act against Sahara. twenty days before releasing the order. Secondly. about being “quite hurt by the fact” that SEBI Chairman U.operating through the office of the Honourable Finance Minister. “See that your officers do not gloat over this. K. among other things. which is regulated by SEBI.. devoid of any truth and are a complete distortion of facts. Sinha apparently told Abraham to be careful in the final order against the Sahara group and to see to it that nothing “harsh” be done.” And when U. Thirdly. In its r esponse to Abraham‟s paranoid letter. 2011. Abraham had already made up his mind about giving a negative order on Sahara weeks before investigating the issue. and of which Abraham was a whole-time member.

Abraham is under severe stress and tension. Abraham]. Abraham was frustrated as he was neither given extension as SEBI.. He appears to be suffering from an insecurity complex. That is so.. where the judges asked Sahara to pay back the OFCD moneys with interest. the Supreme Court again sent a notice to the Government of India on another long standing PIL that challenged the changing of SEBI‟s rules allowing the finance minister to nominate two people on the selection board of SEBI for appointing the SEBI Chairman. the fact is that a few of the statements within the Sahara judgement seemed to have either clearly missed covering critical details or seem completely wrong. He also said he comes from a well known media family and will teach a lesson to everybody involved in harassing him. allegations of bias are out in the open against Abraham. We. Abraham told me he keeps a recording of his phone calls.. One of the judges who ruled against Thomas was K. For the last one month or so. the Supreme Court annulled th e Chief Vigilance Commissioner P. these statements would have been faultless if the judges had given due consideration to the worrisome issues raised by the Ministry of Finance and the SEBI Chairman about the mental balance of the SEBI whole time member. the Supreme Court itself issued notices to SEBI. But given the fact that the Supreme Court did not deliberate on these issues. the two Sahara firms unfortunately again received the short end of the judgement. suffering from a persecution complex and delusions that everybody is out to harm him. On March 29. and more came out within 15-18 days of Abraham passing the Sahara order... was “under severe stress and strain.. the SEBI Chairman.. like ineligibility and suppression of facts.” Thomas was one of the accused in the Ke rala palmolein case. Clearly. and in fact commented that “there were no allegations of bias against SEBI”. Abraham‟s letter t o the Prime Minister‟s office itself documents his own allegations of bias against SEBI Chairman U. motivated.. unless there has been a review of whether the member is mentally stable? Why hasn‟t the stupendously morally corrupt English media woken up to slamming such a member of SEBI passing extremely important orders with huge ramifications? After subsequent hearings in the Securities Appellate Tribunal. and that too as a single-bench.. wholetime member. MCX SX has under oath alleged. To that extent. Why didn‟t he then subject SEBI‟s Abraham to the same level of scrutiny? As per the SEBI a deeply disturbed state of mind”? Should not all such orders passed by Abraham be summarily cancelled and revisited by the Supreme Court of India. wholly unjustified in ignoring the conclusions drawn by the SEBI (FTM) [namely. or provide an addendum. Could that have been the reason that Abraham wasn‟t given any extension and was eased out of SEBI just around a month after giving the Sahara verdict? While I am not judging on this issue. The court observed. nor given the post of Director. prejudice or malice against either the SEBI or the Investigating Authority. amongst others. Sinha. specially because there are no allegations of bias. Radhakrishnan – interestingly. 2012. there is a weighty argument for them to reconsider their judgement. they have also complained against him to the CVC. Dr. the order passed by the SAT cannot be legally sustained. by the Chairman‟s own admission. therefore.. I told him that such conduct is unethical. and rejected (or accepted) the issues raised. “The SAT [which had ruled partly in favour of Sahara] was therefore. In March 2011. I am sure it would have been morally and ethically appropriate for the Supreme Court to have at least picked the topic up of SEBI‟s whole time member‟s alleged moral turpitude and mental state. facing corruption allegations.. K. find.. 2013. Why did the Supreme Court not consider these facts and why did it in fact give statements that were quite contrary to reality? . President Pranab Mukherjee‟s advisor Omita Paul and to Government of India with respect to a petition that challenged the SEBI chief‟s appointment on various counts. I must mention something glaring out here – on September 27. He appears to be in a deeply disturbed state of mind. also responded that all of Abraham‟s allegations were “false.2011. Abraham‟s behaviour is erratic and he seems to be under delusion of some threat percept. Abraham. Lest the Supreme Court forget. K.. Thomas‟s appointment to his post. especially as there is prima facie evidence of Abraham being mentally unbalanced? Will the respected Supreme Court accept such a member in their chambers passing orders.. J. how can any sensible individual accept an order from such a member of SEBI who. The respected judges mention. no illegality in the proceedings initiated by SEBI as well as in the order passed by SEBI (WTM) dated 23. and these are no secret. the Central Government may remove any SEBI member who is of unsound mind and/or has committed an act that amounts to moral turpitude. a figment of imagination. he is the same judge who also gave the judgement in the Sahara case. Sinha in this very case.. finally in August 2012 in the Supreme Court.. which he canvassed with the Chairman to the state of embarrassment. Irrespective of which side you take. on facts as well as on law. bias in the mind of Dr.6. “All the civil servants and other persons empanelled shall be outstanding civil servants or persons of impeccable integrity.. NISM.” In my opinion. K.” Please necessarily note that all these statements alluding to Abraham being mentally unstable. namely Abraham. Although I respect the Supreme Court considerably and should not want the judges to be slighted. S.. unfounded..

). One will never find Allahabad. while one of the judges giving the order on Sahara believed that the OFCD money collected by two Sahara firms was around Rs. apparently couldn‟t have had that name. but completely convinced that Sahara is in the wrong. a man named Haridwar. The decision of SEBI (Whole Time Memeber) in this behalf will be final and binding on Saharas as well as the subscribers.” Supreme Court mentioned that Sahara was to get the opportunity to satisfactorily establish the same as being legitimate and valid. not in the know of the evident allegations of corruption and mental instability against the SEBI member who prepared the initial order against Sahara. “It shall be open to the Sahara‟s. In summary. names of cities do not ever constitute the basis of individual names. unsure about the amount collected through OFCDs.” The same was repeated by Supreme Court . Chennai or Tirupati as individual names.” The three most critical points to be noted in the Supreme Court judgement are as follows: 1. According to the judge. “It was not possible to persuade oneself to travel beyond the first page of the voluminous compilation. unsure how Indians are named. If Sahara did not refund the money. Subbulakshmi. the Supreme Court gave in its closing directions. Subbulakshmi. Tirupati is apparently the Civil Judge (Senior Div. one would be quite perturbed at imagining the diligence they may have shown. or not shown.” Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar).40. Agra.2009 within a period of 10 (ten) days from the pronouncement of this order and it is for the SEBI (Whole Time Member) to examine the correctness of the details furnished. For a definite example.029. S. the other judg e believed that the amount collected was around Rs. some media organisation actually traced out the Sahara agent called Haridwar. 2011. in such an eventuality to associa te the concerned subscribers to establish their claims.000 crore from three million investors.40. Dr. in checking complicated facts. we have two respected Supreme Court judges.2008 and 16. India‟s second President.000 crore (“Saharas have no right to collect Rs. The late Bharat Ratna awardee and famed Carnatic singer M. including attachment and sale of properties. The judge writes. I have to say – such aggressive and misplaced statements surely lead to a lowering of respect for the judgement in the eyes of the common viewer. his ancestral village in Andhra Pradesh.10. was better known as Madurai S.2009 along with interest @15% per annum to SEBI from the date of receipt of the subscription amount till the date of repayment. “Saharas (SIRECL & SHICL) would refund the amounts collected through RHPs dated 13. within a period of three months from today.27. typing Haridwar on Google got me to Dr. With due apologies if it seems I‟m showing contempt for the court.000 crore (“What the two companies chose to collect through their OFCDs was a contribution to the tune of Rs. one of the introducer/agents mentioned in the hard copy. (To added effect. Sahara was to hand over to SEBI the unrefunded amount with details about the investors. Sahara‟s are also directed to furnish the details with supporting documents to establish whether they had refunded any amount to the persons who had subscribed through RHPs dated 13. for realizations of the amounts. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan.3.24. For example.10. What is strange is that none of the judges referred even once in their final order to the OFCD outstanding liability figure reported by the two Sahara firms in their submission to the Supreme Court – Rs. 2. As per the court.3. S. Ministry of Defence. In India. Haridwar. Bangalore.73 crore as on August 31. Notwithstanding all this.27. 3. I can‟t talk for others. Hon‟ble Sh. It‟s not that a few wrong statements negate the whole judgement – but the fact can‟t be denied that if the Supreme Court judges seem to not have shown due diligence in checking such simple facts. And I have evidence for this too. In the event of SEBI finding that “the genuineness of the subscribers is doubtful.” It took me all of five minutes to put paid to the Supreme Court judge‟s contentions.) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Rajasthan Judicial Service. but for me.2008 and 16. one of the judges m entions in the order. was named after Sarvepalli.” While that itself seemed an unexpectedly abrasive statement from a Supreme Court judge whom one would have expected to give tempered remarks. Radhakrishnan). Sahara was also supposed to inform SEBI about the investors to whom it has already handed over the amount. such a div ergent figure between two judges giving the same order is shocking. SEBI could take recourse to “legal remedies. “Haridwa r. much awarded erstwhile Director of DRDO.” Justice K. as a name of a person of Indian origin. is quite uncomprehendable [sic]. what followed subsequently in the order seemed completely without basis.Referring to the hard copy of investors‟ details that Sahara had handed over to the court. which shall be deposited in a Nationalized Bank bearing maximum rate of interest.” The emphasis being that it was open to Sahara to associate the concerned subs criber to the refund claim. freezing of bank accounts etc.000 crore.

Like I said. with the shockingly wide leeway that SEBI has got due to the Supreme Court judgement. The Supreme Court‟s final directions in its August 2012 judgement do not contain the exact am ount to be refunded to investors. The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act. But wasn‟t the Supreme Court‟s mandate simply to interpret laws? Or was it to make new ones? Unfortunately. and which Supreme Court wrongly ignores). but also of Subrata Roy Sahara and a few other persons. The Supreme Court has directed SEBI to attach “all and any bank accounts” related to the two companies in case the two Sahara firms fail to comply with the orders. In other words. It has most erroneously given powers through the final orders to SEBI to “attach and sell properties” of the Sahara group. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar. Chelameswar came up with a startling new figure of Rs. You can imagine how any sane reader would be surprised at Supreme Court‟s clear move beyond the SEBI Act (and I‟m referring to the SEBI Act.40. also. then there was no mention of action against Subrata Roy Sahara or any other individual.780 crore plus interest.520 crore as being the amount to be refunded. but also of other group companies (and this anyway wasn‟t mentioned even in th e Supreme Court judgement).. The SEBI Act gives powers to SEBI to freeze specific bank accounts. so far as it relates to the proceeds actually involved in violation of any of the provisions of this Act. as these accounts any which way were not related to the “proceeds”. Justice J.25. only for freezing transactions. In the rehearing of the case in December 2012 in the Supreme Court. even then attaching Subrata Roy Sahara's and other individuals‟ bank accounts falls beyond the SEBI Act.27. it is most worrying that the Supreme Court seems to now be replicating the role of the Parliament of India. the bank accounts can be attached for only a month. And in case SEBI believes that they can haphazardly and illegally combine the SEBI Act and the Supreme Court judgement to their convenience (choosing only those statements that they like). This leaves me wondering: is this a kangaroo court series redux where we are slapped with any figure that the SEBI investigating officer conjures up? 2. What SEBI is currently doing seems completely illegal and worth open admonishment. but not for “recovering” any money.000 crore mentioned by the other). “The issuance of OFCD [by] the petitioner com pany after their registration with the Registrar of Companies has been permissible under law. in a new February 2013 order based on the Supreme Court judgements. The Supreme Court‟s August 2012 judgement wrongly gives powers to SEBI much beyond the S EBI Act. The Supreme Court order has resulted in SEBI moving ahead and attaching not just the movable and immovable properties of the two companies involved (which itself is illegal vide the SEBI Act.22. 1992 has specifically restricted SEBI from attaching properties as the same has been deliberately not mentioned in the SEBI Act. it has now proceeded to attach each and every bank account of not just the two Sahara companies. This could well be because none of the Supreme Court judges got around to having a diligent idea on the exact amount. as mentioned earlier. claiming they represent the company. Then how is the Supreme Court authorizing SEBI to undertake actions beyond its mandate? 5. SEBI seems to be combining whichever statement they feel is good for them. SEBI. The Parliament has deliberately kept away these powers from SEBI and individual whole time members. only the bank accounts which were related to the actual proceeds can be attached under the SEBI Act.. or the rules or the regulations made there under. as Sahara has always obtained legal permission from the Registrar of Companies and other relevant . The Supreme Court judgement is structurally faulty and deeply erroneous due to the following five reasons: 1. amended as recent as in January 2013).”. claims the amount to be refunded is Rs. The Supreme Court also has erroneously given powers to SEBI to “recover” the amount through the above said attachment of properties and bank accounts. apart from the interest. contains amounts divergent by thousands of crore mentioned by each judge (the Rs. The full judgement too.000 crore claimed by one judge versus the Rs. SEBI can attach only those bank accounts “or any transaction entered therein. 4. Might I mention here that in case SEBI‟s objective was to simply follow the Supreme Court judgement to the tee. How can anything be titled illegal with a retrospective effect when every past year the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has considered the OFCD issuance totally legal? The Additional Solicitor General of India Ashok Nigam noted in the Allahabad High Court. with a special noting from the Union Minister of Corporate a rehearing of the case in December 2012.” How can we simply dismiss these certifications? And why are we forgetting the Additional Solicitor General and Department of Legal Affairs. I repeat. 3. and that itself makes the Supreme Court judgement open to being reviewed/modified by the Court itself or open to being struck down by a Parliamentary Committee. Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir. who all have reviewed the Sahara issue and have passed the same to their full satisfaction? There is no way that this can be termed illegal with retrospective effect based on a rule that is being made now. But as per the SEBI Act. The Supreme Court wrongly titles the original OFCD drive by the two Sahara companies as “illegal”. The SEBI Act does not give any power to SEBI to appropriate any money in the frozen bank account to settle them against dues.

22. This demarcation of legal culpability is the very reason one could not attach the properties of the promoters when ABCL collapsed. but to title them as illegal with retrospective effect is disregarding the legal certifications of a Union Ministry and the Registrar of Companies. its powers are limited to deal with unlisted companies with limited number of share holders or debenture holders and the legislature. then I have to say. every public sector company has the President of India as its titular head and the Parliamentarians as their top promoters.3. but beyond the very basis of capitalism and the distinction between group entities and between shareholders. that the Indian Companies Act clearly defines. not out here. “The Ministry of Corporate Affairs is as powerful as the SEBI and cannot be regarded as a toothless or powerless organization. it should approach the Parliament to pass an Act or amend the SEBI Act. If the Supreme Court so wishes to increase the powers of SEBI. respect the basic premise on which capitalism rests and on which thousands of companies and millions of investors depend. There seems to be a one-minded objective to bring Sahara‟s operations to a stop. But making an off-hand statement about the Ministry‟s “well-known” lack of machinery. it is well k nown.781.25. is. That is the very reason one could not attach assets of Vijay Mallya or of United Breweries when Kingfisher collapsed. in its wisdom. had mentioned in his official note in 2011. As per Sahara. does not have the machinery to deal with such a large public issue of securities. Sir.370. something which leaders in African nations like Zimbabwe are better known to do.32 crore. Shareholders are limited by the extent of their shareholding in their risk exposure to the company in concern. not welcome. even before any direction. One cannot extend the punishments being meted out on any indicted company to its group entities or its shareholders unless it is clearly proved beyond doubt that these group entities or shareholders were also involved in the same issues on which the company is being acted against. along with 15% annualised interest.39 crore to the respective investors. Out of this. Sahara was supposed to repay to SEBI the balance of Rs.authorities. All industrialists and experts I talked to were stunned at SEBI‟s attempt to do this. no sensible investor would ever invest in an Indian company in case SEBI and the Indian courts start transgressing the clear line that demarcates a company‟s incorporation – giving it a definitely independent legal status as compared to its group companies and its shareholders. Thus. has to be necessarily considered an entity distinct from other companies belonging to the same group. if they apparently had "no machinery”? SEBI‟s mindless drive to attach accounts and properties of other group companies of Sahara and of shareholders goes not just beyond the SEBI Act. If the Supreme Court is trying to take over the powers of the Parliament of India in passing amendments to SEBI Acts. the Court should approach the Parliament to spruce up the so-called “machinery” at the Ministry. In summary. Then why did the Registrar of Companies exist in the first place.” If the Court believes that the Ministry is of no use in handling large issues from unlisted companies. A company. The Supreme Court order is structurally faulty and should be reviewed immediately by the court itself or should be struck down by a Parliamentary consensus because the court is attempting to give powers to SEBI – to freeze properties and to recover monies – specifically not mentioned in the SEBI Act. I repeatedly see a clear case of the Supreme Court going beyond a Parliamentary Act and an attempt by the court to give unrestrained powers to a single individual (like a SEBI Whole Time Member) – this was never the intention of the SEBI Act. I wish to mention to him. Our respected finance minister spoke last month that we cannot have rich promoters and sick companies. Let‟s not cross that line in clarion calls for socialist -nationalism. The then Additional Solicitor General of India.93 crore remaining on the date of the order. in its communication post the Supreme Court order. in other words the head of India‟s finances when India is technically a dramatically loss making entity with unmanageable deficits. You yourself are the finance minister. How comfortable would you be if your banks extended this rule to your own bank accounts and personal assets? What if I recommend that the Rashtrapati Bhawan be attached for the losses that the remarkable Air India has made in the previous years? Please Sir. “Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Sahara had already repaid Rs.663. and this kind of daylight lynch -mobbing is what the Supreme Court should have been originally stopping. Mohan Parasaran. this kind of democracy is not what I bought into. then rather than give unconstitutional rights to SEBI. As a basic tenet of capitalist business. in my opinion. and that banks therefore should start acting against promoters in such cases. the total collection of the Sahara companies through the OFCD issue was Rs.1. has conferred power s on SEBI.” I have no idea how this view was “well known”.53 . whether private or public. The maximum the Supreme Court could have mentioned is that the OFCDs be discontinued from the said date of the judgement. rather than attempt to replicate the Parliament‟s role. an additional Rs. Group companies are different entities. The Sahara Group has been forced to approach the High Court in Lucknow in March 2013 to immediately stop SEBI‟s ridiculous approach.117. The Court mentions in its judgement. after submitting each and every document required.

Sinha commented sarcastically.. So what would one have expected the slanted SEBI to do post this? You guessed it right. ask him to jump off again. SEBI clearly has objectives other than investors‟ benefit in mind and has not responded positively to any of these. 2013. knowing very well that he won‟t survive. RBI reversed its stand and allowed Sahara to accept deposits provided Sahara included independent directors to oversee the board and adhered to a few procedures.033. Recently. a group of investors even approached SEBI requesting that SEBI treat investors repayments on a first come first serve basis. I ask. is that final evidence that therefore all others must be fake? Is this a logical method to reach the figure of real investors? Are people expected to reply to English language mailers from SEBI within a few days? And that too. After initially ordering Sahara to stop collecting deposits. SEBI could even do what RBI did a few years back with Sahara. This comes to close to Rs. How can Sahara be asked. only 68 people responded to SEBI‟s mailers to investors. disregarding Sahara‟s contention that it had already paid back to a majority of investors and had deposited more than the remaining amount with SEBI.5. SEBI is trying every rule “not” in the book to kill the mocking bird. for the lack of a better analogy. From refusing to accept documents from Sahara (Sahara apparently got delayed by a handful of hours in su bmitting the million plus documents.. SEBI Chairman U. the Supreme Court. And when the person jumps off t he cliff and somehow survives. to claiming there are less than hundred true investors in Sahara‟s OFCD. To add to it. directed Sahara to deposit the original amount again with SEBI. I want you to ponder over it and think how feasible. if I were to write letters to all Supreme Court judges.93 crore. Sahara did better – they paid up to SEBI an amount of Rs. They‟ve requested SEBI to repeatedly advertise on national media (at Sahara‟s costs) and have undertaken that they‟ll repay all the investors who might believe they‟ve been left out and may approach SEBI post the advertisements. I need not name it.120 crore. when a majority of Sahara‟s OFCD‟s investors are in the rural belt? Frankly. . I might reach a conclusion that no Supreme Court judge exists. but there is this particular company that claims to have returned more than Rs. leading to SEBI‟s churlish stand). Ask a person to jump off a cliff. Sahara is also providing government certified auditor‟s reports for all its actions – deposits refund.000 crore to their socalled investors and more than 90% of this refund has been made in cash in the last 3-4 months. investors identification etcetera.20. and we‟re talking about unlisted companies. As per SEBI.crore. K. In a seminar on April 3. Sahara has given an extremely logical solution to all this.” This is what I call a kangaroo court. “There is a famous case. to give away the cake and give it away again? We‟re talking about thousands of crore. how credible this story can be. asking them to reply to me personally within a handful of weeks to provide evidence that they exist. through Indian post? And in this case. claiming nobody could have survived such a jump.5.

all this seems purely like a lynch-mob to me. and please don‟t try to control unlisted companies. whom I need not name. if it adjudges diligently.So you don‟t believe Sahara jumped off the cliff Mr. Sinha. What in heavens is going on out here? Since when have SEBI‟s whole time members become individuals who can arrest and detain others – and completely beyond the powers specified in Parliamentary Acts. media reports mention that SEBI is appealing to the Supreme Court to give powers to SEBI to “ar rest and detain” Subrata Roy Sahara in a civil prison. they seem quite similar to the statements of one famous German leader. all I can say is that the current case against Sahara seems to be completely against the laws of natural justice. Sinha. what exactly are you attempting to do? Isn‟t “returning the money in three months” exactly what you wanted this company to do? Did not the Supreme Court also tell Sahara the same time duration? Or are you saying that you originally knew that it was impossible for any company to return this much money in this less a time. I repeat. don‟t kill risk taking entrepreneurs in this country. don‟t disregard rules laid down by the Indian Companies Act. either the Supreme Court or/and the Parliament should immediately review their stand and take sensible steps in repayment to investors rather than give lynch-mobbing powers to SEBI beyond their legal act. Please don‟t get me wrong Mr. have not been missed. the more the farce of it all will be out in the open. Parliamentary Acts and Supreme Court mandates. who existed in the middle of the previous century. And the more SEBI tries to control unlisted companies that have no intention to list in the future. don‟t kill capitalism in this country. Or it might not. That is what would raise respect for the judiciary and even SEBI. it might even approve the above request. And now. If sense has to prevail. . putting paid to all your grand plans to control all unlisted companies? Your more recent statements demanding that there should be a single regulator – aka SEBI – regulating all financial transactions in the country. My fear is that given the Supreme Court‟s recent past in disregarding the limitations of powers of SEBI given in its act. In conclusion. Allow me to mention. without significant sense – leading to desperate advertisements from Sahara beseeching “Enough is enough” and calling the SEBI Chairman to an open media debate. yet went ahead earlier to claim that they should return the money in a lesser amount of time? Why are you afraid to bring out advertisements asking troubled investors to approach SEBI directly for refunds? Are you worried that not more than “68 investors” would turn up asking for a refund.

” Eric Bellman reports in the Wall Street Journal. Castigate Sahara and Subrata Roy Sahara for all you want. spent much time interviewing him and critically analysing and scrutinising his financials – I can personally say that he is no criminal. to banking. I have found him committed to uplifting India‟s masses. it is a similar line of thought driving the English media. Tony Munroe of Reuters reported this year that “among many poorer residents of Uttar Pradesh. Modi represents the other India – In it. too soon. Roy also employs 700. “Giving to the poor doesn‟t only mean giving money. to sports. India‟s most populous state. Alex Perry wrote in the TIME Magazine. S ubrata Roy. and if one is jealous that he is ultra-rich and his group has acquired riches too much. In a little more than a quarter-century. then lynch-mobbing is not the appropriate way to respond. Capitalism was never about pulling down growing corporations by hanging them in public.It is unfortunate that the English media in India has still not woken up to this travesty being engineered against Sahara. he has become India‟s second largest employer after the railways. to housing. Sahara customers interviewed in Uttar Pradesh said they trusted the company. Yes. And if that is what it has become in India.exemplifies how wealth can benefit more than just the wealthy. I have met Subrata Roy Sahara in the past. which has been around more than 30 years. “In the past 30 years. then we have to change it.. when he started working in 1978 armed purely with a mechanical engineering diploma and a two wheeler (a Lambretta). I had mentioned.thesundayindian. let me mention a few descriptions provided by foreign media. I wonder then why is the English media being so uncharitable to Subrata Roy Sahara? A few weeks back. Roy has built a $10 billion empire spanning finance to real estate to media.” BBC reported how Subrata Roy Sahara is referred to as India‟s Howard Hughes. For the sake of the English media.000 people. But capitalism does work for some. Narendra Modi for me represents Bharat while the English media represents India. “The Modi and secular media tussle is a fight between Bharat supported by the common man and India supported by the Nehruvian Network!” (http://www.. if you will – which is deeply frustrated by the monopoly that the English media and its secular warriors exercise over information and messaging. On the other hand.” I suspect that in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara.. I had written an editorial titled. Mr. is for all to see. to media. one could not have forethought his business gumption. “The fact is: it is a fight between India and Bharat. legally! His commitment to rural India. rationally and immediately. but legally and sensibly... Sahara has substance. powered by the savings of mostly poor and rural savers. discussing the bias of our English media against Narendra Modi. Why am I saying it? The simple reason is that I am convinced that the English media is now a voice of the old feudal India where just a few people claim to know what is best for both India and Indians. the English media just can‟t handle the trust this other India holds in him and his Sahara group of companies..” Similar are the reviews by The New York Times. While Subrata Roy Sahara represents the other India I call Bharat. .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful