The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on the Saharagroup after it found that the group had not satisfactorily complied with the court’s October order to submit title deeds of properties worth over Rs 20,000 crore. The court imposed restrictions on the entire group from selling any immoveable or moveable property and barred its promoter Subrata Roy Sahara from leaving the country. 

 

The order was passed in a contempt case filed by Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) against two group companies Sahara India real Estate and Sahara Housing Invest, which allegedly have not complied with the Supreme Court’s August 2012 order to refund Rs 24,029 crore they raised by issuing optionally fully convertible debentures(OFCD). Sahara, which paid Rs 5,120 crore to Sebi, claims it has refunded the rest directly to investors. 

 

The court adjourned the contempt proceedings to December 11. 

 

Last month, the apex court had directed the group to file original title deeds of properties worth Rs 20,000 crore to cover its dues.  It emerged that there were several flaws in the documents filed by the group.  

 

“They have not complied with the order. They also know it. Everybody knows it,” Judge KS Radhakrishnan said after hearing the explanation of Sahara counsel CA Sundaram and Sebi’s counter arguments. 

 

When Sundaram pleaded with the court to clarify which part of the order they have not complied with, Radhakrishnan said “This property is not worth Rs 19,000 crore.”

 

Judge JS Khehar told Sundaram, “It is not for you to understand. It is for Sahara to understand.”

 

Earlier, Sundaram had presented a detailed explanation of a valuation report of the 106-acre property in Versova done by Knight Frank. He presented an additional clarificatory report from the valuer explaining the methodology of valuation. He also presented an additional report by a second valuer. 

 

Both entities had put the valuation of the property between Rs 18,800 crore – Rs 19,300 crore under internationally accepted valuation methods such as market approach method and income method. 

 

The Sahara counsel also presented an additional clarificatory report from Knight Frank addressing certain objections raised by Sebi on Wednesday. He said the property was located in close to the upmarket Andheri-Lokhandwala complex in Mumbai and was within a kilometre’s distance from the proposed Metro terminus in Versova. The property also was said to enjoy a premium for its sea-view, being located between a river and the sea.

 

He said, quoting the valuers, that a residential complex developed by Oberoi just opposite the plot was selling flats at rates of Rs 36,000 per square feet. Windsor, another developer in the vicinity, was selling at Rs 30,000 to rs 35000 per square feet.

 

The valuers assumed an average rate of between Rs 27,000 to Rs 37,000 per square feet. This translated into a value of Rs 181-190 crore per acre, which in turn put the value of the entire plot.

 

But, all these arguments came to a naught, when Arvind Datar, the Sebi counsel pointed out that the entire property was situated in the middle of a “no-development zone” and that there was a clear direction by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests barring any development. “It is in the green zone. Nothing can be built on it. The FSI allowed is 0.5 and that is why there was a plan to develop a golf course.”

 

Datar also pointed out that the land was part of a larger disputed area of 614 acres and Sahara has been engaged in legal disputes with the original owners B Jeejeebhoy Wakaria and associates since 2001. 

 

Datar pointed out that the court direction was to submit “title deeds” and not reports of investment value. He submitted in view of the facts submitted that this property could not be considered worth more than Rs 118 crore.  

 

Sundaram pointed that there was a notification issued by Maharashtra government in December 2012 allowing development of townships alongside transport corridor and this would allow Sahara to develop the township. But, neither Sebi nor the court was convinced.  

Source & Credit - Business Standard.com

People with non-judicial background can be CIC: SC

In a significant ruling, the apex court recalled its own verdict on the appointment of central, state information commissioners across the country

  NEW DELHI, September 3: The Supreme Court on Tuesday recalled an order and admitted that it committed a "mistake of law" by directing that only sitting or retired high court chief justices or an apex court judge could head the central and state information commissions.

A bench of justices A K Patnaik and A K Sikri withdrew its order of September 13, last year in which a slew of directions were passed pertaining to appointment of information commissioners.

"It was mistake of law. We recall the directions," the bench said while reading out the operative portion of its judgement on a petition filed by the Centre seeking review of its last year's order. The Centre had sought review of the apex court's verdict, saying it is against the provisions of the transparency law.

The apex court, in its judgement last year, had said that like other quasi judicial bodies, people from judicial background be also appointed as members of the central and state information commissions and this should be done after consulting the CJI and chief justices of the respective high courts.

The court had directed the government to amend RTI Act for it. "Chief Information Commissioner at the Centre or state level shall only be a person who is or has been a chief justice of the high court or a judge of the Supreme Court of India," the court had said.

The bench had passed the order on a PIL challenging section 12 and 15 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, enumerating the qualifications needed for the appointment of members of the commissions. The bench had, however, refused to quash the sections but asked the government to modify them so that people from judicial background are also preferred for the posts.

Source & Credit: Deccan Chronicle

Reserve Bank of India has directed two Non-Banking Financial Companies(NBFCs), viz., Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. (MFCL) and Manappuram Finance Ltd.(MAFIL) to stop allowing the use of its premises / branches to acceptdeposits from public by their associate unincorporated bodies.

RBI directive on acceptance of deposit by Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. (MFCL) and Manappuram Finance Ltd.

NBFC Deposit Scheme

The Reserve Bank of India has directed two Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs), viz., Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. (MFCL) and Manappuram Finance Ltd. (MAFIL) to stop allowing the use of its premises / branches to accept deposits from public by their associate unincorporated bodies.

Muthoot Estate Investment (MEI), was collecting public deposits through the branches of MFCL located in Kerala, which is a violation of the provisions of section 45-S of the RBI Act, 1934. The Manappuram Agro Farms (MAGRO), a sole proprietary concern of Shri V.P. Nandakumar (Executive Chairman of MAFIL) was accepting fresh deposits from the public. MAFIL, which was earlier a deposit taking (Category ‘A’) company, became a non-deposit taking NBFC in March, 2011. However, its maturing deposits were being renewed with MAGRO. Both these actions were in violations of section 45-S of RBI Act, 1934.

In the case of the MEI, total amount of deposits from the public and outstanding as on 31.01.2012 was Rs. 1,913 crore. Out of these unauthorized deposits accepted by the unincorporated body, an amount of Rs. 1,173 crore was outstanding as on 30.06.2013. RBI has issued a press release and an advertisement in local newspapers informing and cautioning the public that it was not allowed to raise deposits under the provisions of the RBI Act. RBI has issued a show cause notice to MFCL under section 45-IA of the RBI Act. RBI has also referred the matter of deposit collection by MEI to State Government of Kerala for appropriate action at their end under Chapter IIIC of the RBI Act, 1934 as the State has necessary machinery and reach for action.

RBI had issued directions to the MFCL under section 45-L of the RBI Act, 1934 to desist from associating itself, its premises, branches or officials in any manner with MEI in accepting deposits from the public.

As regards MAGRO, out of Rs. 143.85 crores of public deposits held by MAGRO as on 29.12.2011, there are currently 506 customers with Rs. 93 lakhs in outstanding deposits.

A show cause notice was issued to MAFIL on 07.05.2013 for cancellation of its Certificate of Registration under the provisions of section 45-IA (6) of the RBI Act, 1934. Based on the company’s reply and the findings of the scrutiny thereon, it was concluded that MAFIL has taken steps for disassociating its name, officials, etc. from MAGRO and other promoter group entities. At present, MAGRO does not have presence in any of the branches of MAFIL. Further, an amount of Rs. 119.18 crore was transferred to an escrow account maintained with Punjab National Bank towards repayment of deposits. At present, the remaining amount of outstanding deposits is being paid out of this escrow account.

This was stated by Shri Namo Narain Meena, MoS in the Ministry of Finance in written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha.

CCI penalises shoe companies

CCI imposes penalty of Rs. 6.25 crores on 11 Shoe Companies

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has imposed a penalty of Rs. 625.43 Lakhs on 11 Companies in a case filed by Director General-Supplies & Disposal (DGS&D), New Delhi relating to a tender for supply of polyester blended duck ankle boots rubber sole. CCI found these 11 Companies to have violated the provisions of Competition Act, 2002 which deals with anticompetitive agreements. CCI had worked out the penalty @ 5% on the average of the gross turnover for financial years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. CCI has directed these companies to deposit thepenalty amount within 60 days from the receipt of the order.

This case was initiated on a reference made by Director General-Supplies & Disposal (DGS&D), Department ofCommerce, Ministry of Commerce & industry, Govt. of India, New Delhi. The reference pertained to a tender enquiry dated 14.06.2011 for conclusion of new rate contracts for polyester blended duck ankle boots rubber sole. Thereference alleged bid rigging and market allocation by the suppliers while bidding against the above tender enquiry.

After a detailed investigation, Competition Commission of India held that the bidder-suppliers by quoting identical/ near identical rates had, indirectly determined prices/rates in the Rate Contracts finalized by DG S&D and indulged in bid rigging/ collusive bidding in contravention of the provisions of section 3(1) read with section 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(d) of the Act. Further, the Commission noted that the parties had also controlled/ limited the supply of the product in question and shared the market of the product amongst themselves under an agreement/ arrangement in contravention of the provisions of section 3(1) read with sections 3(3)(b), 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) of the Act.

Accordingly, CCI directed the contravening parties to cease and desist from indulging in such anti-competitive conduct in future. The Commission also imposed a penaltyon each of the contravening company at the rate of 5% of the average turnover of the company.

The order of the Commission has been passed in Ref. Case No. 01 of 2012 and a copy of the order has been uploaded on the website of CCI at www.cci.gov.in.

Supreme Court stays execution of Maganlal - The Hindu

Supreme Court stays execution of Maganlal - The Hindu

Shameless to continue in the post!

SC moved for Balakrishnan’s removal as NHRC chief

The Supreme Court was moved Friday seeking direction to the government to start proceedings for the removal of former Chief Justice of India K.G.Balakrishnan as the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission.

NGO Common Cause has sought direction to the government that it should make a reference to the apex court under Section 5(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act for holding an inquiry against Justice Balakrishnan for his alleged acts of misbehaviour during his tenure as CJI.

The NGO, in its PIL, alleged that during the tenure of Justice Balakrishnan, his close relatives including his daughters and sons-in-laws acquired assets disproportionate to their known sources of income.

It has also alleged that ‘benami’ (proxy) properties were purchased in the name of his former aide M. Kannabiran.

The PIL said that Justice Balakrishnan approved “evasive and false replies given by CPIO, Supreme Court in response to the RTI application filed by Subhash Chandra Agarwal regarding declaration of assets by judges…”

It claimed that the response to RTI application also suppressed a letter written by a high court judge alleging that then union minister A. Raja tried to interfere in his judicial function and alleged Balakrishnan lied to the press that he had not received any such letter.

The PIL said that the government has neither taken action nor responded to its representation seeking reference to the apex court for an inquiry into the misbehaviour of the former chief justice.

(Source:IANS)