In the vibrant landscape of Indian business in the 2000s, one company left an indelible mark, its logo emblazoned on the jerseys of the Indian cricket team – Sahara. Founded in 1978 by Subrata Roy, Sahara evolved into a multifaceted empire with interests spanning finance, housing, media, airlines, hospitality, and even a stake in a Formula 1 team, boasting assets exceeding ₹2,50,000 crores, as per Sahara’s outdated website claims.
However, the seemingly formidable empire began to unravel in the 2010s, revealing a complex web of financial mysteries. One such enigma revolves around Sahara’s ₹25,000 crores liability, a puzzle that has persisted for over a decade.
The saga began in 2010 when Sahara Prime City Limited filed its Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) with SEBI, intending to go public. SEBI, however, unearthed an anomaly – two other Sahara group entities, Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited (SHICL), had raised over ₹19,000 crores from more than 2 crore investors. This caught SEBI’s attention, prompting inquiries into why this massive fundraise had gone unnoticed.
Sahara’s defense was that it was a private fundraise, meant exclusively for its ‘pariwar’ or family of well-wishers, a term encompassing employees and customers. The funds were raised through Optionally Fully Convertible Unsecured Debentures (OFCDs), with Sahara claiming it didn’t fall under SEBI’s purview as it was not a public issue.
SEBI, unconvinced, ordered Sahara to return the funds to investors and halted Sahara Prime City’s IPO. Sahara contested this in courts, including the Supreme Court, but failed to sway the decisions. The Supreme Court ordered Sahara to deposit the funds raised through OFCDs with SEBI.
The plot thickened when Sahara asserted that it had already repaid the investors in cash, a claim met with skepticism by the Supreme Court. The court sought proof of the source of the refunded money, emphasizing that Sahara must disclose whether it came from other companies, schemes, bank withdrawals, or property sales.
Despite these legal battles, SEBI recovered substantial funds from Sahara, amounting to ₹25,000 crores, which it deposited in national banks for refunding investors. Astonishingly, after over a decade, SEBI has only received claims totaling a mere ₹138 crores, leaving a considerable sum idle in its accounts.
This financial mystery raises questions about Sahara’s actual fundraise and the legitimacy of its repayment claims. Some speculate that Sahara’s involvement in alleged Ponzi schemes through various Sahara Cooperative Societies might hold the key to this financial labyrinth. The unanswered questions surrounding the ₹25,000 crores remain an enduring secret, perhaps buried with Subrata Roy.
