Judgment : 1. Taken on board. Since the impugned order (Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. V. Union of India, Civil Misc. W.P.No.11702 of 2010 (Misc. Bench 11702/2010), order dated 13-12-2010 (All)) is an ad interim order and as the matter is listed for peremptory hearing on 12-1-2011, we see no reason to interfere at this stage. However, in view of the stakes involved (including protection of the investors), we are directing the High Court to proceed with the hearing of the case on day-today basis from 12-1-2011, without adjourning the case. We are directing SEBI and Registrar of Companies (RoC) to file is counter-affidavit by 7-1-2011, and copy be furnished immediately to Respondent 1 herein. 2. We quote hereinbelow para 32 of the impugned order (Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. V. Union of India, Civil Misc. W.P.No.11702 of 2010 (Misc. Bench 11702/2010), order dated 13-12-2010 (All)) of the High Court: “As an interim measure, the operation of the impugned order contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition is stayed with liberty to SEBI to proceed with the inquiry but no final decision shall be taken. However, the Registrar of Companies/Central Government is directed to proceed with the controversy at their end, investigate in the interest of shareholders and submit a status report by the next date of listing. The petitioners shall provide all necessary required information to the Registrar of Companies in terms of the notice dated 21-9-2010 and 14-10-2010 expeditiously say within three weeks. In case the Registrar arrived at the conclusion that it is a case of public company then, shall proceed in accordance to law and also inform SEBI.” From the said paragraph, we find that the High Court has given liberty to SEBI to proceed with the inquiry. At the same time, the High Court has SEBI to proceed with the inquiry. At the same time, the High Court as directed Respondent 1 to give the names of the investors to RoC in terms of the notices dated 21-9-2010 and 14-10-2010. We make it clear that SEBI would also be entitled to call for any information which it deems fit, including the names of the investors who have invested in OFCDs in the course of the inquiry. 3. Mr. We make it clear that SEBI would also be entitled to call for any information which it deems fit, including the names of the investors who have invested in OFCDs in the course of the inquiry. 3. Mr. Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent 1, very fairly states that they agree to give information that SEBI will call upon them to furnish in the inquiry. However, it shall be given without prejudice to the rights and contention in the pending matter. 4. Before concluding, we make it clear that we express no opinion on the merits of the case. We request the High Court to expeditiously hear and decide the case. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.