- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
Respond to Sandesara brothers’ plea in Sterling Biotech case: Supreme Court directs SEBI
Respond to Sandesara brothers’ plea in Sterling Biotech case: Supreme Court directs SEBI
The Supreme Court has directed the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to respond to billionaire brothers Nitin Sandesara and Chetan Sandesara’s plea, challenging the regulator’s refusal to close its probe against them in the Sterling Biotech Limited case.
The bench observed that it had earlier questioned SEBI’s decision not to end the probe.
The apex court stated that its primary concern was the recovery of funds, which must come back to India for the benefit of the banks.
The judge stated that Rs.5,100 crore paid by the Sandesara brothers (as part of a settlement) must be distributed to secured lenders on a proportionate basis. He further directed that the amount be distributed among the consortium of lender banks in proportion to the amount due towards them.
The court ordered, “The litigation with respect to the loan amount of the petitioners for which the FIR was registered, and the one-time settlements (OTS) were sanctioned and approved, shall be put to an end by way of full and final settlement as per consensus, and this litigation shall be put to quietus.”
While stating that the decision was taken due to the ‘peculiar facts’ of the matter, the court said that it should not be treated as a precedent.
The bench observed that since the petitioners were willing to repay a significant portion of the dues, there was no purpose in continuing criminal proceedings against them.


