A packed courtroom was left stunned when the leader of the Supreme Court bar, in an unprecedented intervention, requested a bench presided over by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir to keep away from a matter concerning a top corporate house An application by Sahara seeking more relaxations with regard to the deposit of over Rs 24,000 crore with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), was listed for hearing before the bench.Dashing Sahara's hopes the plea was dismissed, but not before some embarrassing moments triggered by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president M.N. Krishnamani's remarks requesting the bench to stay away from the matter.Soon after the matter was called up for hearing, Krishnamani walked up to the bench and requested it not to modify any order by another bench. "In keeping with the traditions of the court, I request you not to modify an order passed by another bench," he said.Krishnamani told the bench that he had decided to caution the court as the leader of the bar and as an officer of the court."Interference by the court in the matter had given room for rumours? I felt pained and agonised," he said.With Krishnamani speaking up before the bench had considered Sahara's application, Justice Kabir questioned his decision to jump in. "How do you know what we are going to do? Do you know what the matter is about? Do you know about the contents of the application?" Justice Kabir asked.The SCBA president did not seem to know the details of the case but stressed that it was for people like him to caution the court. "We do not need cautioning," Justice Kabir said.The bench, thereafter, asked Krishnamani to let the hearing take place. "Take your seat and see what the matter is all about," the bench observed.Incidentally, the application by Sahara was to seek modification of a December 5, 2012 order by a bench presided over by justice Kabir himself. However, on December 5, 2012, the bench presided over by justice Kabir had modified an August 31, 2012 order by another bench of the apex court.While virtually modifying the August 31 order, the bench had on December 5, 2012 allowed Sahara to give Rs 17,400 crore with interest to SEBI in two installments till the first week of February 2013.In court on Monday, after Krishnamani had taken his seat, senior counsel Ram Jethmalani submitted on behalf of Sahara that he wanted further relief from the court. He stressed that he needed more time to comply with the direction to submit documents and money."We did that once only to make it possible for you to deposit the money for the benefit of investors," the bench said, indicating at the outset that it was not inclined to offer any more relief. It was then that the bench dictated a brief order rejecting Sahara's application.Jethmalani, who had been waiting in the courtroom since morning for his chance which came at 4.30 pm, was disappointed that the hearing had ended in a minute. Seeking an audience, he said he expected "at least a hearing for two more minutes"."It (Sahara's application) is unfortunate. We should have dismissed the application with cost," Justice Kabir said. The December 5 decision by the bench to extend time for submitting money and documents had been opposed by SEBI but the bench had stressed at the time that the order was in the interest of investors.Sahara was given 15 more days to produce documents before SEBI as proof of the amount already refunded by the company to investors. The bench said Sahara will be entitled to a refund of the amount paid in excess to SEBI.The deadline fixed in the August 31 Supreme Court order for refunding the money collected from the public by two Sahara companies under the OFCD (optionally fully convertible debentures) scheme was November 30, 2012.SEBI's counsel Arvind Dattar had strongly objected to the order not only on merit but also on the ground that the bench headed by the Chief Justice could not modify an order by another bench. He had asked the court to refer the matter to the bench which passed the earlier order. The bench however had stressed that it was extending the deadline for payment in the interest of investors.