The 35-year-old ‘Shakuntala’ building, situated at Bazarpeth in Mumbra area of Thane district, collapsed after midnight when the residents were fast asleep
At least seven persons, including an infant, were killed and 14 others injured when a three-storey building collapsed in Thane in the early hours on Friday.
The 35-year-old ‘Shakuntala’ building, situated at Bazarpeth in Mumbra area of Thane district, collapsed after midnight when the residents were fast asleep, police said.
Police rushed to the site at around 2.30am and have launched relief and rescue operations.
Many are still feared trapped in the debris of the building, police said.
The injured, including some seriously hurt in the mishap, have been admitted to Kalsekar Hospital, CSMH and Civil Hospital in the city, they said.
Thane district collector P Velrasu, police commissioner K P Raghuvanshi and acting Municipal commissioner Shaymsunder Patil rushed to the scene while a fire brigade team has also gone there for assistance.
The two-month-old deceased girl has been identified as Mahek Muddasar Punjabi, police said.
On June 10, a four-storey building collapsed at Mahim in Central Mumbai in which ten people were killed and six injured.
Prior to this, a building crashed on April 4 at Shil-Phata near Mumbra in Thane district which claimed as many as 74 lives and left over 60 injured.
You may also want to read:
The tendency to obtain prized allocations for much-needed coal but not do any development work causes legitimate users to suffer and national progress is impeded. Lame excuses will no longer be tolerated
Last year, Union coal minister Sriprakash Jaiswal finally took the bold step of de-allocating coal blocks and encashing the bank guarantees of the allottees, most of whom had done nothing after getting the blocks, though the general excuse was that they were unable to get ‘clearances’.
Anyway, so far, there is no news if the de-allocated coal blocks have since been re-allotted to others, and if so, to whom and how? It is also not clear as to whether the ministry would strictly enforce time-frames for the new allottees to operate the mines.
In a separate development, power companies, which have been allotted coal blocks, must now sell electricity through distribution companies (Discoms) only on a long-term basis. They should sign Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with Discoms at least six months before commissioning the plants. This rule is mandatory for those who are likely to commence production shortly or within the next 18 months.
Such a move will ensure that the cheap indigenous coal supplies actually and directly benefits the consumer who would be able to obtain power through these Discoms.
After the strong step taken last year to de-allocate coal blocks, the coal ministry last week announced that it has issued show-cause notices to 12 companies, including government owned organizations, as to why they have not commenced their operations. Apparently, several meetings have been held in the past for finding the causes for this inordinate delay, and finally the Inter Ministerial Group (IMG) found progress so unsatisfactory that they ensured such show-cause notices to be sent.
This tendency to obtain prized allocations for much-needed coal but not do any development work causes legitimate users to suffer and national progress is impeded. The standard excuses for not doing any work at site is to simply claim that ‘approvals’ and ‘clearances’ are in ‘process’ and or not received. This sort of lame excuses will no longer be tolerated.
In fact, these 12 coal block allottees have been given time till 30th June to submit the reasons for non-performance. No doubt, this time also, the ministry will ensure the encashment of bank guarantees.
Hopefully, an independent agency will be appointed to investigate the ‘real’ causes for such delays and dig deep into the root cause of the problems relating to ‘clearances’. Are these, truly, technical, involving too many cumbersome and difficult formalities, or those created by corrupt officials demanding their pound of flesh?
In the meanwhile, where mining operations are going on at reasonable pace, the new problems faced by some power generating units in Gujarat and Rajasthan have cut down their daily off-take to 12,000-15,000
tonnes of coal a day, as they now want to truck this thermal coal from Chhattisgarh mines to coal washeries for cleaning before delivering the same to railway sidings.
It appears this operational logistics involves laid down procedures of tendering for trucks, causing delays for Coal India (CIL). There are two steps that CIL can take to resolve such issues. Either it owns a fleet of trucks (or expand its existing fleet, if it already has one, and not depend upon fleecing contractors), and or additionally set immediate goals to lay railroads to washery sites and move on to the final destination. Lower intake of coal from pitheads will only slow down production and create congestion and overstocking there.
Time is the essence of the contract, and to overcome these site difficulties and reduce transport logistics, the railways must lay additional tracks expeditiously.
The one good news is that international coal prices are coming down to $80 per tonne, but, our problem continues to be the transport logistics that need to be resolved without any further delay, and assist CIL to overcome their current impasse.
(AK Ramdas has worked with the Engineering Export Promotion Council of the ministry of commerce and was associated with various committees of the Council. His international career took him to places like Beirut, Kuwait and Dubai at a time when these were small trading outposts; and later to the US.)
Isn’t it time to report options turnover based on the premium and not on the notional contract?
Futures and Options (F&O) segment in the stock exchange attracts huge volume of transactions. The turnover reported by the National Stock Exchange (NSE) on a daily basis is so high that it sounds too good to be true on any given day. Did you know that NSE reported a turnover of more than 2 lakh crore in its F&O segment on 20 June 2013? While it was one of the highest in recent times because of upheaval in the market yesterday, the fact is that the turnover did not happen for this amount in NSE in the F&O segment. Most of this turnover volume reported is notional. Let us look at the data to understand this.
As per NSE website, on 20 June 2013, the F&O segment of NSE reported following turnover:
The trade statistics clearly reflects that majority of the turnover was Index Option segment. In fact more than 80% of the transactions happened in the options segment including index and stock options. But this number has been reported as notional by the NSE. Now the question is—why is the word notional here? This needs to be understood as follows. Suppose you buy a single lot of call option on the Nifty with a strike price of 6,000 and pay a premium of Rs6 per lot size, the amount paid by you will be Rs300 only as the lot size of the NIFTY is 50, so the amount works out to be (Rs6 x lot size—fifty). So for a trader the amount is equal to premium* lot size*number of lots.
But the exchange will treat this transaction differently and report differently as far as turnover reporting is concerned. The turnover in this case will be treated as (Strike price plus premium) * lot size. This means that in the previous case the transaction value will be 6,006*50 i.e. Rs3,00,300. So for a Rs300 position that was taken by a trader, the turnover reported was more than 1,000 times. While it may not be thousand times always, it is indeed substantially higher than the position taken by trader in options transactions.
This method of recording turnover can be related to the Rs200 crore reported in case of Wing Commander CR Mohan Raj, who is fighting his case against Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd . The high turnover reported shows that that the investor needs to be filthy rich to transact for this kind of volume while the case is different practically. This is based on my assumption that Mr Raj took position in options transaction.
While it is true that the payoff position of an investor in the options contract depends on the difference in the spot and strike price and strike and spot price in respective cases of call option and put option at the time of expiry, it does not make sense to report this turnover. This can make sense to the exchange only if it levies charges from brokers based on the turnover. Inflated turnover means more revenue which is not the case now as NSE and SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) both charge turnover fee based on the premium in options. Isn’t it time to report option’s turnover based on the premium and not on the notional contract?
(Vivek Sharma has worked for 17 years in the stock market, debt market and banking. He is a post graduate in Economics and MBA in Finance. He writes on personal finance and economics and is invited as an expert on personal finance shows.)