The move is estimated to benefit around 60,000 artisans, and will allow khadi institutions to sell their products at market-determined prices
The Indian government has signed a loan agreement with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) under which the multilateral funding agency will provide $150 million (Rs717 crore) for developments and reform of about 300 khadi institutions across the country.
This loan is expected to benefit around 60,000 artisans who in turn will allow khadi institutions to sell their products at market-determined prices. The artisans will be directly benefited by this programme and the setting up of a marketing organisation will also help in improvement in the sales of khadi products in the country.
Under the agreement, ADB will provide the loan to State-run India Infrastructure Finance Co Ltd (IIFCL) in four tranches.
During FY09, the khadi and village industry employed around 1.03 crore people with a production value of Rs1,733.90 crore.
An employee from SHCIL's Secunderabad office committed suicide, after saying that she was being stalked by a customer-stockbroker. Did her SOS call to SHCIL’s management fall on deaf ears?
The suicide by a lady employee of the Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd (SHCIL) has thrown up some serious issues related to the entity’s human resources (HR) policies and guidelines. A few days ago, an employee from SHCIL's Secunderabad office committed suicide, after saying that she was being stalked by a customer-stockbroker.
In her suicide note, A Ananda Lakshmi blamed a company customer-stockbroker Janardhan Rao for her death, saying that he had been harassing her for about two-and-a-half years. According to media reports, Medchal's police sub-inspector (PSI) C Yadender has said that the employee had informed her husband about the harassment and also complained to her manager at SHCIL.
The suicide of Mrs Lakshmi, however, has raised questions about the functioning of SHCIL. Any organisation is supposed to protect its employees—especially women employees—from outsiders. We contacted SHCIL, asking, "What kind of an organisation is the Stock Holding Corporation of India, where a customer-stockbroker can harass an employee and drive her to suicide?”
Vishnu Shinde, the security and vigilance head at SHCIL, replied, “The matter has been reported to the police, who have registered a criminal case under Section 306 of the IPC. The police have since arrested Janardhan Rao, a member of the public. We feel that we should wait for the outcome of (the) police investigation to know the truth behind the suicide rather than prejudging the issue. The SHCIL management is extending all necessary assistance to (the) police and the bereaved family."
But we think that SHCIL could have very well saved Mrs Lakshmi’s life if they had provided all the help that they are now offering, much earlier.
We sent a mail to SHCIL’s top management asking them about the complaints which had been filed by Mrs Lakshmi, but we still haven’t received any reply from them.
The SEBI board met on Tuesday to discuss the alleged failure of NSDL in preventing the IPO scam during 2003-05, but it did not take any decision on this issue. SEBI chief CB Bhave, who was heading NSDL during the period of the scam, did not attend the session.
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Board, which met on Tuesday to discuss the alleged failure of National Securities Depository Ltd (NSDL) in preventing the initial public offer (IPO) scam during 2003-05, did not take any decision.
"The Board on Tuesday heard the NSDL matter but no final decision was taken; that will take some time," a source close to the development told PTI.
SEBI chairman CB Bhave, who was heading NSDL during the period of the alleged scam, did not attend the session which was chaired by Mohandas Pai. The NSDL keeps records of equity transactions and demat accounts. Mr Bhave later succeeded M Damodaran as SEBI chief in February 2008.
The IPO scam case refers to SEBI's investigations into 21 IPOs that hit the market between 2003 and 2005. SEBI's probe revealed that shares reserved for retail investors were illegally acquired by various entities through tens of thousands of fake demat accounts and fictitious applications.
A two-member bench was constituted after Mr Bhave took over as SEBI chairman. The bench comprising G Mohan Gopal (director of National Judicial Academy) and former RBI deputy governor V Leeladhar had passed an order against NSDL, directing it to carry out an independent enquiry to establish individual accountability for the failures of NSDL in the IPO scam.
It may be recalled that SEBI had suppressed the orders of the Gopal-Leeladhar committee for almost a year and made them public only after a public interest litigation was filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court forcing their disclosure. Even then, the board decided to declare the orders 'non est' on the rather dubious excuse that the committee had exceeded its powers by criticising SEBI itself. It then decided to hear the NSDL issue afresh and 'dispose of the case'. It was largely believed that the SEBI board will give NSDL a clean chit.
This view has since been criticised by Justice JS Verma, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India. Justice Verma had opined that "the recent decision (of the) SEBI board to review and declare as ‘non-est’ two quasi judicial orders of SEBI violates established legal and Constitutional principles. These quasi judicial orders may be reviewed only by a judicial forum with requisite jurisdiction, at the instance of a petitioner with standing to seek relief."
There is also another issue about Mr Achuthan's opinion that will have to be considered by the board. The SEBI committee which obtained Mr Achuthan's opinion had omitted to take into account that he is a director of the National Stock Exchange (NSE). More pertinently, his firm has represented the registrar Karvy and several other firms indicted by SEBI in the IPO scam. There is a strong view that this represents a conflict of interest that was not openly disclosed to the board by SEBI officials who are working overtime to protect Mr Bhave or follow his diktat.
There was also an opinion among legal circles that the entire SEBI board cannot act as a quasi-judicial body to decide matters that are controversial.