SC tells Sebi to review development proposals for Sahara's Versova property

Q: How long will it take to read this news story?

The story "SC tells Sebi to review development proposals for Sahara&#039;s Versova property" has 539 words across 21 sentences, which will take approximately 3 - 5 minutes for the average person to read.

Q: Which news outlet covered this story?

The story "SC tells Sebi to review development proposals for Sahara&#039;s Versova property" was covered 18 hours ago by Business Standard, a news publisher based in India.

Q: How trustworthy is 'Business Standard' news outlet?

Business Standard is a fully independent (privately-owned) news outlet established in 1975 that covers mostly business and finance news. The outlet is headquartered in India and publishes an average of 291 news stories per day. It's most recent story was published 2 hours ago.

Q: What do people currently think of this news story?

The sentiment for this story is currently Neutral, indicating that people are not responding positively or negatively to this news.

Q: How do I report this news for inaccuracy?

You can report an inaccurate news publication to us via our contact page. Please also include the news #ID number and the URL to this story.<ul><li>News ID: #24976860</li><li>URL: https://beamstart.com/news/sc-tells-sebi-to-review-17363472056430</li></ul>

Business Standard Logo Business Standard 18h ago

SC tells Sebi to review development proposals for Sahara's Versova property - Business Standard

Quick Summary:

Sebi had in 2011 ordered the two Sahara Group firms to refund the money raised from nearly 30 million investors.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Sahara, said the company did not have a fair opportunity to sell its properties as no one wants to touch the same.

The funds were to be deposited with Sebi.“If, after the verification of details furnished, (Sebi) is unable to find out the whereabouts of all or any of the subscribers, then the amount collected from such subscribers will be appropriated to the Government of India,” the apex court had said.