The Supreme Court today directed Sahara Group to refund Rs 24,000 crore with 15 per cent interest in nine weeks to its three crore investors amid stiff opposition from market regulator SEBI and depositors over staggered payments.

The order directed the Sahara Group to make immediate payment of Rs.5,120 crore and the balance in two instalments. The first instalment Rs 10,000 crore has to be made by the first week of January and the remaining by the first week of February.

The bench headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir also directed the Group to supply the documents relating to investors within 15 days and warned that failure to fulfill its directive on payment of the money to SEBI will lead to attachment of assets.

The virtual modification of the directives of another bench of the apex court by the Chief Justice evoked strong protest from SEBI which objected to the alteration of the August 31 verdict directing the Group to make the refund by November end or face attachment proceedings.

Interestingly, the apex court passed the order when a review plea of Sahara of the August 31 verdict and a contempt petition against it by SEBI are pending before a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar who had passed the earlier order against the companies.

SEBI's counsel Arvind Dattar strongly opposed the order dictated by Justice Kabir along with justices S S Nijjar and J Chelameswar and said that it was not right to modify the earlier verdict given by a different bench.

He submitted that Sahara's plea must be heard by a bench of justices Radhakrishnan and Khehar which had passed the verdict against the Group's two companies---Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Ltd (SHICL).

At one stage, the Chief Justice ticked off Dattar for insisting that the court must must record his statement in its order that the case must be heard by justices Radhakrishnan and Khehar.

"We will record what we feel to record. We cannot record what you say," the Chief Justice shot back.

The Universal Investors' Association, representing the depositors in Sahara Group, objected to the order, saying that it was pronounced without hearing their arguments.

Appearing for the association, senior advocate Vikas Singh said while the court has remarked that it will pass order to protect interest of the investors, it was giving the direction without hearing them.

"You are saying that the order is being passed to protect the investors and you are passing the order in the guise of protecting the investors, but what is there for them if investors are not heard. It is not fair," an upset Singh said, immediately after the order was dictated by CJI.

He said that his petition should not be disposed of along with Sahara's petition, but CJI retorted, "No, sorry".

During the hearing, the bench said that at the moment, it appears that the Sahara group was not in a position to make the entire payment as directed by the apex court by the August 31 verdict.

"We have taken a slightly liberal view with the concern of depositors and not with the company," it said.

With today's order, the court modified the August 31 verdict which had set a three-month deadline ending November to the Sahara group to make the refund.

The order was passed on an an appeal filed by the Sahara group against a November 29 order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), which had refused to entertain their plea and asked them to approach the Supreme Court which had directed them to refund the amount by November 30.

During the hearing, SEBI also objected to Sahara's submission that its two companies, were liable to refund Rs 17,400 crore and not Rs 24,000 crore.

At the outset, the bench also questioned Sahara's counsel, senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam on changing the figure of the amount.

"Why are you changing the figure?" the bench said and added that it will not go into anything else but only on the issue of refund of the amount.

"You please do not go into any other thing. The question is not how much you have to pay. You have not supplied the documents to SEBI. You are at fault. You are wrong," the bench observed.