Supreme Court seeks Saharas response on amicus submission of 34 claims to properties SICCL needs to promote to Adani Properties

The Supreme Court on Monday (November 17, 2025) allowed Sahara Group to answer a illustration made by amicus curiae, senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, that he has obtained “a minimum of 34 claims” to varied properties which the corporate needs to promote to Adani Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Appearing earlier than a Bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and M.M. Sundresh, Mr. Naphade mentioned Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (SICCL) didn’t disclose any of those 34 claims to the Supreme Court when it had utilized for permission to promote a complete of 88 properties, together with Amby Valley in Maharashtra and Shahara Saher in Lucknow, to Adani Properties.

Mr. Naphade mentioned the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) ought to issued discover within the newspapers, inviting objections to the sale of all 88 properties.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Gautam Awasthi, showing for Sahara, mentioned the courtroom should give the corporate time to answer the amicus curiae.

The Court gave Sahara and the federal government 4 weeks to answer the petition. The Court joined the Ministry of Cooperation within the case as Sahara was concerned in lots of cooperative societies.

SICCL had, in an utility, urged the Court for permission  “to outright promote varied properties belonging to the Sahara Group to Adani Properties Private Limited for the consideration and on the phrases and situations as set out within the time period sheet dated September 6, 2025”.

SICCL mentioned it and Sahara Group had nice problem been capable of liquidate sure of their movable and immovable belongings. The proceeds had been deposited into the SEBI – Sahara Refund Account.

“Out of a complete principal quantity of ₹24,030 crore, the Sahara Group, by means of sale/liquidation of their movable and immovable belongings have realised an quantity of roughly ₹16,000 crore and deposited the identical within the SEBI – Sahara Refund Account,” the applying mentioned.

SICCL has argued it might “not be misplaced to say that, as might be seen from the earlier orders handed by the Supreme Court that although the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had tried on a number of events to promote/liquidate the belongings of the Sahara Group (together with via partaking reputed property brokerage firms and consultants), it was in the end unable to liquidate any belongings of the Sahara Group. The entirety of the funds deposited within the SEBI – Sahara Refund Account have been deposited via the only efforts of and with nice problem by SICCL and the Sahara Group”.

The SICCL mentioned the choice to promote was taken within the curiosity of stakeholders, together with buyers, to be able to fulfill their claims. It mentioned nice efforts had been made to liquidate moveable and immovable belongings to be able to deposit the proceeds into the SEBI-Sahara Refund Account.

Mr. Awasthi mentioned the proposed transaction was a breakthrough, not solely in unlocking substantial worth from the Sahara Group’s key immovable belongings, but in addition guaranteeing compliance with the monetary obligations.

Noting that Sahara misplaced its sole decision-maker with the demise of Subrata Roy in November 2023, SICCL mentioned the “members of the family want to safeguard the curiosity of the buyers”.