Citizens' Issues
CBSE to re-conduct AIPMT exam on July 25
The CBSE on Tuesday announced that it would re-conduct the All India Pre Medical Test (AIPMT) for medical and dental courses on July 25.
 
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) "decided to re-conduct the All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Test - 2015 on July 25" following Supreme Court orders on June 15 and June 19, the board said in a statement.
 
It added that no fresh applications would be accepted for the examination and it would be a "retest only in respect of the candidates who had applied within the stipulated time from 01/12/2014 to 31/01/2015 with requisite fee".
 
The Supreme Court on June 19 gave CBSE time till August 17 to conduct the exam and declare the results of AIPMT for medical and dental courses for the year 2015-16.
 
The court by its June 15 order had cancelled the AIPMT examination held on May 3 following the leak of the question paper and circulation of the answer keys through electronic devices across 10 states in the country, observing that the exam was rendered "futile by a handful of elements seeking to reap undue financial gain by subjecting the process to their evil manoeuvres".

User

How to merge BSNL and MTNL?
Both the state-run organisations have lost their value. BSNL is down to not more than $20 billion from close to $70 billion. So is the fate of MTNL
 
The debate on saving state-run Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL) and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (MTNL) have been going on for the past several years; by merging them together to synergise operations, is one approach amongst many. To my reckoning, the time this debate has gone on could be close to ten years. During this period both the organisations have lost their value, BSNL from close to $70 billion is down to not more than $20 Billion. So is the fate of MTNL.  One approach has been to merge the two organisations. There are statements in the press that the process would get completed by July 2015. Approaches like MTNL acquiring BSNL or vice-versa and of course merging the two together. 
 
It must be understood that one of them is listed and the other is not. Whatever approach of the three one takes, the question of valuation will arise from the point of view of the share holders of MTNL. In this debate alone of what to do all we have seen is erosion of the valuation of both the organisation accompanied by an extremely lacklustre performance despite having the best infrastructure and reasonable competent man power. Should this approach continue, July 2015 too would be a mirage or wishful thinking?
 
What needs to be done is to find the value of BSNL? To do that there are two main issues which need to be resolved?
 

Synergy between the two by merging them together

 
Governance is a larger issue encompassing the entire approach to the public sector units (PSUs). My view is that they have to be board governed and not managed on day-to-day basis by the administrative Ministries.  As I said, this issue has to be resolved at much higher platform as a clear policy directive.  My views on this can be summed up by this question: “Does Sunil Mittal seek the permission of Sanchar Bhawan to procure any equipment or hire and fire any of his staff or matters relating to their compensation?”  This first step has to be to restructure both the Boards by empowered personnel from both inside and outside. We have to bring in eminent professionals from outside, like what has been recently done create a committee under TSR Subramaniam. This step has to be taken ASAP. The mandate has to be turn around, complete Bharat Broadband Network Ltd (BBNL) and get BSNL listed.
 
The debate has been centred on how to go about it for the last so many years. In order to better understand the problem, the merger is contemplated between a listed company and an unlisted company, MTNL is listed and BSNL is not. MTNL has few ADR holders as well. The debate is, does MTNL merge with BSNL or vice-versa? How to compensate the existing MTNL share holders?  There have been a deluge of reports from the big five, however none giving a clear path. My view is that before seeking any report from any of the Big Five, BSNL must be listed. The steps to be followed would be:
  1. To carry out an in house computation of its net worth taking into account the massive infrastructure and the land and buildings on the basis of its true market value. To my belief that in itself would be mind bogglingly close to few billions. 
  2. Get a sanity check of the valuation by a good Chartered Accountant (CA) or one of the top public sector or private Indian bank. To my mind ICICI Securities and SBI Capital would fill the bill. This would also provide a balance between private and public. Member (Finance) of the Department of Telecom (DoT) and a Secretary from Ministry of Finance (MoF) must have oversight.  
  3. Let us say the valuation is close to $50 billion. Convert that into number of shares of Rs10 each, say Rs300 billion. Either issue a fresh equity of 30 billion shares so that money comes to the company or let the government sell their 30 billion shares or a mix of the two say 15 billion each. Whatever approach is taken, it must be made clear that the money will be used for the purpose for which it has been collected. This could include even issues like offering voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) to some of existing employees. These shares can be priced at some discount to the book value discovered. Bundle size can be created for the entities to pick bundles of various sizes depending upon their appetite. The minimum bundle could be say Rs50 crore.
  4. Let these shares be forced to be purchased by PSU banks, Life Insurance Corp of India (LIC) and or other Indian financial institutions. The preference should be Indian institutions and banks. I am quite sure that these would be lapped up. If oversubscribed keep a green shoe option of 3% of the issue size.
  5. Following the completion of this sale of say 10% to 13% of government or BSNL or a mix of the stock, take immediate action to list the shares at both BSE and NSE.   Allow them to trade for some time. Some of the entities may off load. Let the trading continue for some time. At least three months time must be given to trade to discover the value. During this period, restructuring of both BSNL and MTNL must continue by appearing them to be board governed. 
  6. Based on this valuation, issue fresh equity of say 5%, in case not done as above,  to raise money with the sole purpose of downsizing the bloating man power by bringing in VRS and or any other schemes to demonstrate that BSNL means business. Fresh equity means, money into the company and not government. 
  7. Separate the Chairman and CEO (chief executive officer) post. Chairman must be an eminent personality. Bring in hardnosed professionals to run the company and board. 
  8. In the mean time continue to restructure the board by bringing in eminent personalities form outside as well. Start looking at the compensation structure of the personnel of the two companies to attract talent into the company at all levels.  
  9. Once this exercise is completed say in a total of six months, a benchmark price point would be available for BSNL.
  10. This is the time when an announcement should be made that the Government intends to merge the MTNL and BSNL at swap ration say 100 shares of MTNL buys you one BSNL share.
  11. Make an offer to the American Depositary Receipt (ADR) holders and others. 
  12. Take action to coalesce the two Boards into one. 
  13. One immediate action to increase revenues of both BSNL and MTNL is to order them to allow all private networks to Roam on them. They are losing big time by some stupidity. They have the best infrastructure adequate enough to take care of  all the roamers all over India.

Conclusion

 

The debate can go on till cows come home. Few more July dates will go by. Three steps:
 
(a) Establish BSNL price point by professional valuations
 
(b) Restructure Boards and improve governance, look at compensation to incentivise staff, attract staff, retire staff 
 
(c) Allow all private networks to roam on the network.
 
(BK Syngal is former CMD of erstwhile Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd (VSNL). He is a B Tech (Hons) and M Tech from IIT, Kharagpur, C Eng (UK), MIEE (UK) and Sr MIEE (US). He is also a member of the London Court of International Arbitration.)
 

User

COMMENTS

Sugumar Iyer

1 year ago

Both the entities have lot of fixed assets and surplus land in important places. They have useless junk land line equipment which can be disposed off. BSNL has very good net work covering rural areas too. They can merge even post offices also and create a monolithic entity. The surplus assets may be sold/ rented to generate funds. They can also enter into real estate business. There is lot of scope to generate income and good profits. The employees may be taken as share holders for motivating them to work sincerely. Thus there is good scope for development if a suitable entrepreurial CEO is appointed. The Govt control can be relaxed and done away all together in due course, allowing them to function independently. It is high time that these are done, better late than never.

Ramesh Iyer

1 year ago

While agree with the suggestions made by the eminent ex-CMD of VSNL, the larger issue is of the very purpose of persisting with PSUs in this new economy era. PSUs were created in the socialistic approach during Nehru era and are no longer relevant as almost none of the PSUs are profitable. To add to this, most PSUs are abused and misused by the politicians heading the Ministry concerned, and senior IAS officers end up as CMDs of these PSUs as 'juicy' postings with few pressures on profitability (unlike their private sector competitors), but with many perks & privileges. Air India is a classic example of rampant abuse by both netas & babus, which is why it will never get privatized. Moreover, as someone rightly said "it's not the business of govt to be running a business". So, large PSUs like BSNL & MTNL ought to have been privatized and run by professional CEOs long time back. For over a decade since the telecom sector was opened up to private sector, Telecom Ministers have regularly abused their power to favour private telecom operators over State-run ones like BSNL & MTNL. India should end this culture of nurturing PSUs at taxpayers' expense and make them free from govt control to compete on even terms with private players. Of course, the major issue of powerful Unions in these PSUs is something no govt can ignore. So, PSUs created by Nehru will remain a millstone around the Govt's neck for a long time.

REPLY

Shirish Sadanand Shanbhag

In Reply to Ramesh Iyer 1 year ago

Mr. Ramesh Iyer, what are your concrete steps in the merger of MTNL & BSNL?
Just beating over the bush will not help our rural population at large, in getting their inexpensive telecommunication services, as offered by BSNL.
When Mobile Spectrum was auctioned by the Government, at places which are having more rural population and remote areas like Kargil, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, it is BSNL who offered Mobile services and not private operators.
We have to act upon B.K.Sanyal's directives, to salvage rural populations to get best and inexpensive telecommunication services by salvaging MTNL & BSNL.
Instead of simply harping over the irregularities and abuse of power by our past politicians, you please come with some best solution, as given by Sanyal.

Shirish Sadanand Shanbhag

1 year ago

Views expressed by B.K.Sanyal, former CMD Videsh Sanchar Nigam, regarding merger of MTNL & BSNL is worth considering.
Communication Minister should look into this matter, before situation worsens further.
If BSNL is taken over by any private company, (as it has happened with Videsh Sanchar Nigam), our rural people will not get an affordable telecommunication services.

Personal Finance Exclusive
When Banks Cheat Customers
Stanchart robs a doctor in Kolkata with churning and forgery. Will RBI act?
 
Dr Abhik De, a highly qualified doctor in Kolkata, had an account with Standard Chartered Bank. Since 2005, the Bank also managed his mutual fund investment which was Rs1.56 crore in 15 schemes. In a 19-month period after May 2008, Stanchart switched and churned his portfolio over 200 times causing a massive loss of Rs68.28 lakh. In so doing, the Bank often forged signatures on transaction slips. At least 50 transactions in July-August 2009, all loss-making, were a give-away since he was out of the country. Dr De confirmed the forgery by writing to each mutual fund and seeking photocopies of transaction slips. Dr De says that some of the forged signatures were even attested by Stanchart officials. When he complained, the Bank initially dismissed his complaint as false and frivolous. 
 
A reckless churning of mutual funds to earn commissions as well as entry- and exit-loads can only happen when there is a nexus between ‘wealth managers’ and the fund managers. Dr De complained to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) but got nowhere. Over the past four years, he has slowly gathered enough evidence to file a police complaint.  
 
Dr De describes the attitude of regulators succinctly and colourfully. He says, “If a person is murdered with an unlicensed revolver, the judge does not ask for the source of the weapon. He conducts a murder trial.” Our regulators have all been focused on trivial technicalities rather than justice even when violation of their own regulations is very clear. 
 
Stanchart’s actions are a direct violation of SEBI’s prohibition of fraudulent and unfair trading practices regulations, as well as the code of conduct for mutual fund intermediaries. Readers would recall that Moneylife’s relentless pressure ensured SEBI action against HSBC in a similar case of churning involving singer-actress Suchitra Krishnamoorthi. The actress was eventually paid Rs1.3 crore by HSBC as a settlement. But SEBI has done nothing to help Abhik De.
 
Finally, the Kolkata police registered a first information report (FIR) based on his complaint in 2014. It caused Stanchart to wake up at long last. The Bank sacked its relationship manager and unilaterally transferred Rs35 lakh into Dr De’s account (November 2014) calling it a “full and final satisfaction of all claims, demands and contentions raised by you.” Adding insult to injury, it called this a “goodwill gesture to maintain cordial relations” with its victim. Obviously, Dr De is in no mood to accept or give up the battle. 
 
The question is why did RBI fail to redress the complaint? An ordinary consumer who cannot repay a small loan or defaults on credit card is declared a defaulter and his financial life is crippled. But a bank decimating a person’s savings through mis-selling faces no action. The collective clout of banks has swung the pendulum of justice far against the ordinary consumer. This cannot go on. RBI’s consumer charter, issued in 2014, is supposed to protect people from such brazen mis-selling. RBI must make an example of Dr De’s case. Awarding exemplary punishment will show that it is serious about fair treatment of consumers.
 
 
 

User

COMMENTS

Abhik De

1 year ago

Since SEBI is the market watchdog , the control and regulations come within your domain and one of the Banks which has taken necessary permission and license from your end to do mutual fund business, has committed such cheating and forgery. Therefore I do expect that you will direct your concerned officers to initiate an appropriate enquiry,and reopen the case as in case of Ms.Suchitra Krishnamoorty vs.HSBC CASE,our case is Xerox copy of the same case and take necessary steps against the erring bank and Mutual Funds for acting in collusion,vide your guidelines/codes formulated to protect the rights and interest of investors.

Abhik De

1 year ago

The StanChart bank violated the provisions of Regulations 3 (a), (b), (c) and (d) and 4(1) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 and SEBI’s Circular No. MFD/CIR/06/210/2002 dated June 26, 2002 prescribed under Regulation 77 of the SEBI(Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 read with Clauses 1, 9 and 13 of the Code of Conduct of Intermediaries of Mutual Funds. There was violation of Code of Conduct for Mutual Fund Distributors, SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) PFUTP Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'PFUTP Regulations') and SEBI Act, 1992 by the StanChart bank with regard to the Mutual Fund transactions done on behalf of the complainant.

Abhik De

1 year ago

After the F.I.R.has been filed and during the course of the investigation,by police authority, the Bank had sent a letter dated November 24, 2014 wherein they stated – “The Bank has given due consideration and examined these issues and has decided to pay you a sum of Rs.35, 00,000/-- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs) in full and final satisfaction of any or all of your claims, demands and contentions raised by you against the Bank ("Claims"). We have therefore credited your account no. 322-1-013831-2 on 24th November 2014 held with us at Bidhan Sarani Branch Kolkata with the said sum of Rs. Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs).”. This decision to credit the amount was unilateral,without giving any details of payment and attempt to wash the hands off by paying this meagre amount after cheating me to the tune of Crores.
The bank in the said letter also claimed – “This payment has been made by the Bank as a goodwill gesture and to maintain cordial relationship with you. The payment of this amount should not in any way be construed as admission of any fault or default or failure or offensive act on the part of the Bank or any of its officers”. These statements itself is an admission of guilt. Goodwill gesture after 4yrs.,that too post police complaint is self explanatory.The bank must pay us back the balance amount with interest.Appropriate penal action should be taken against S.C.B.,AMCs who in connivance facilitated churning,and violated all guidelines.Should stop dealing with S.C.B.Licence of StanChart should be put to on hold to sell mutual fund products till our grievances are amiccably redessed.
Hope regulator/R.B.I.noticing.Please showcause StanChart as in Ms.Krishnamoorty vs.HSBC case.Both are similar.

Abhik De

1 year ago

After the F.I.R.has been filed and during the course of the investigation,by police authority, the Bank had sent a letter dated November 24, 2014 wherein they stated – “The Bank has given due consideration and examined these issues and has decided to pay you a sum of Rs.35, 00,000/-- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs) in full and final satisfaction of any or all of your claims, demands and contentions raised by you against the Bank ("Claims"). We have therefore credited your account no. 322-1-013831-2 on 24th November 2014 held with us at Bidhan Sarani Branch Kolkata with the said sum of Rs. Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs).”. This decision to credit the amount was unilateral,without giving any details of payment and attempt to wash the hands off by paying this meagre amount after cheating me to the tune of Crores.
The bank in the said letter also claimed – “This payment has been made by the Bank as a goodwill gesture and to maintain cordial relationship with you. The payment of this amount should not in any way be construed as admission of any fault or default or failure or offensive act on the part of the Bank or any of its officers”. These statements itself is an admission of guilt. Goodwill gesture after 4yrs.,that too post police complaint is self explanatory.The bank must pay us back the balance amount with interest.Appropriate penal action should be taken against S.C.B.,AMCs who in connivance facilitated churning,and violated all guidelines.Should stop dealing with S.C.B.Licence of StanChart should be put to on hold to sell mutual fund products till our grievances are amiccably redessed.
Hope regulator/R.B.I.noticing.Please showcause StanChart as in Ms.Krishnamoorty vs.HSBC case.Both are similar.

Abhik De

1 year ago

StanChart bank is a registered Association of Mutual Funds India (AMFI) distributor with No.ARN-1209. Accordingly,it violated all codes/guidelines ,formulated by AMFI/SEBI,mentioned in previous postings/and to the regulator and trade body.But who cares.

Abhik De

1 year ago

Funnily enough all codes/guidelines formulated by the regulators/statutory/trade bodies to protect the interest of investors.But in reality,reverse is happenning in our case.Just protect the interest of large distributor/intermediary at any cost.

Abhik De

1 year ago

It should be noted,the HSBC bank was show caused by SEBI,in the capacity of Mutual Fund distibutor,as mentioned in the last few lines of the order:Transactions undertaken by the Noticee(HSBC) in relation with the complainant were in its capacity
as Mutual fund distributor and not as a portfolio manager.Strangely enough,the regulator failed to act against StanChart bank on the same ground,which violating all norms present on earth to protect the rights &interest of investors.Arent they supposed to be the custodian of investors'funds!Our endeavour will continue, till The StanChart bank faces the same fate as HSBC i.e.atleast show cause notice/penal action.

Abhik De

1 year ago

The StanChart bank violated the provisions of Regulations 3 (a), (b), (c) and (d) and 4(1) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 and SEBI’s Circular No. MFD/CIR/06/210/2002 dated June 26, 2002 prescribed under Regulation 77 of the SEBI(Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 read with Clauses 1, 9 and 13 of the Code of Conduct of Intermediaries of Mutual Funds.Will the regulator act?

Abhik De

1 year ago

We have approached SEBI to redress our grievances. Your kind attention is invited to SEBI Circular Number SEBI/IMD/CIR NO. 8/174648/2009 dated August 27, 2009 wherein in para 9 of CODE OF CONDUCT FOR INTERMEDIARIES OF MUTUAL FUND it is clearly stated as under:

9. Avoid commission driven malpractices such as :

(a) Recommending inappropriate products solely because the intermediary is getting higher commissions therefrom.

(b) Encouraging over transacting and churning of Mutual Fund investments to earn higher commissions, even in they mean higher transaction costs and tax for investors.

We reproduce hereunder point number 4 of above mentioned SEBI Circular dated August 27, 2009:

4. It is advised that all intermediaries of mutual funds units shall follow the code of conduct strictly. If any intermediary does not comply with the code of conduct, the Mutual Fund shall report it to AMFI and SEBI. No mutual fund shall deal with those intermediaries who do not follow code of conduct.

We had time again asked Mutual Funds and AMFI to bar Standard Chartered Bank from selling Mutual fund products since they have violated SEBI Guidelines by over transacting and churning of our mutual fund portfolio, but only to deaf ears. And now to our utter surprise SEBI is asking us to file an FIR with the police department for redressal of our grievances. We have been subjected to churning, forgery was to facilitate the same. It is same as murder taking place with an unlicensed revolver, Judiciary never asks for the source of revolver. Main concern of judiciary is to bring the criminal to book. We similarly expect SEBI to ascertain whether churning has taken place or not and if yes than to follow there circular and take necessary actions against Standard Chartered Bank for violation of guidelines.

Waiting for a proper reply from your end.

Abhik De

1 year ago

• Standard Chartered bank as an intermediary have breached code of conduct as specified by AMFI.
• Para 3.9 relating to code of conduct for Intermediaries clearly state that an intermediary should avoid commission driven malpractices such as :

(a) Recommending inappropriate products solely because the intermediary Is getting higher commissions therefrom.
(b) encouraging over transacting and churning of Mutual fund investments to earn higher commissions, even if they mean higher transaction costs and tax for the investor.
Our complaint was with respect to Standard Chartered Bank an intermediary for sale of Mutual fund schemes. They have violated all guidelines by churning our mutual fund portfolio and forging signatures on the transaction slips resulting in big financial loss to us. For reasons beyond our comprehension it seems that AMFI is only to facilitate income of the intermediaries even at the cost of investors. Morever we are of the opinion that AMFI only requests the intermediaries to follow code of conduct but does not take any action if such code of conduct is breached to facilitate there income at the cost of investor. This is very much evident from the introductory statement of Mr. A.P. KURIAN, Chairman AMFI where it is requested as follows:

“It is our request that all the intermediaries make sincere efforts to adhere to the guidelines and the code of conduct so that all those engaged in the business of selling and marketing of mutual fund scheme’s follow professional, healthy and best practices for the sustained benefit of all concerned – investors, intermediaries and the Mutual Fund industry as a whole”

The request by AMFI has fallen into deaf ears of Standard Chartered Bank and they have committed such grave fraud so as to rob investors like us of our hard earned money.

Manoj Singh

1 year ago

As the licences were issued by the central bank,R.B.I./and the regulator /statutory body issuing certification for distributorship/intermediary,(ARN-1209)to the bank,above authorities must intervene.

Manoj Singh

1 year ago

How can S.C.B.get away with this kind of fraud?i.e.reckless churning/unauthorised transactions. Client interest not protected!Violating all guidelines/norms prescribed by SEBI/AMFI/R.B.I.?The authorities must take appropriate action,like it took in the celeb.Suchitra K.case vs.HSBC.

Dr.Abhik De

1 year ago

The regulator/the central bank must take action against the erraint stanChart bank,as did against the HSBC/July 2014 ,without any discrimination.Both issued the licences to the bank,for that matter ,all banks.It should make Dr De's case an example,that no bank acting as intermediary/distributor/investment advisor/wealth manager ,can get away after cheating customers.They should follow their guidelines/codes as formulated to protect the interest of investors.Clients'interest should have been of prime interest.

Dr.Abhik De

1 year ago

Atlast getting fed up,COMPLAINT WAS LODGED WITH CRIME BRANCH.After the complaint has been filed and during the course of the investigation the Bank had sent a letter dated November 24, 2014 wherein they stated – “The Bank has given due consideration and examined these issues(of 27.08.2011) and has decided to pay you a sum of Rs.35, 00,000/-- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs) in full and final satisfaction of any or all of your claims, demands and contentions raised by you against the Bank ("Claims"). We have therefore credited your account no. 322-1-013831-2 on 24th November 2014 held with us at Bidhan Sarani Branch Kolkata with the said sum of Rs. Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs).”. This decision to credit the amount was unilateral,without any details and attempt to wash the hands off by paying this meagre amount after cheating me to the tune of Crores.

28. The bank in the said letter also claimed – “This payment has been made by the Bank as a goodwill gesture and to maintain cordial relationship with you. The payment of this amount should not in any way be construed as admission of any fault or default or failure or offensive act on the part of the Bank or any of its officers”. These statements itself is an admission of guilt. Regulator/the central bank unmoved.I suppose out of "GOODWILL GESTURE TO STANCHART BANK".

Dr.Abhik De

1 year ago

There is clear Code of Conduct issued by Investment Management Department of Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) which has advised that all intermediaries of mutual funds shall follow the code of conduct issued by SEBI very strictly and it has also been advised that no mutual fund shall deal with the intermediaries who do not follow this code of Conduct. The circulars had been issued in terms of Section 11 of Sub-Section 1 of SEBI Act 1992 ( Mutual Funds ) Regulations 77 of SEBI ( Mutual Funds ) Regulations 1996 which had been issued with the objective to protect the interest of the investors in Securities and to promote the development and to regulate the securities market.Violation of SEBI code MFD/CIR/06/210/202(SEBI show caused HSBC bank in MS.Suchitra’s case for violating it) and SEBI/IMD/CIR NO.8/174648/2009dt.27.08.2009,wherein churning/overtransaction/commission driven malpractices have been prohibited. I am writing this to R.B.I./SEBI since you are the Central bank of the state,SEBI is the market watchdog, the control and regulations come within your domain and one of the Banks which has taken necessary permission and license from your end has committed such cheating and forgery. Therefore I do expect that you will direct your concerned officers to initiate an appropriate enquiry and take necessary steps against the erring bank and Mutual Funds for acting in collusion.StanChart violated the provisions of Regulations 3 (a), (b), (c) and (d) and 4(1) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 and SEBI’s Circular No. MFD/CIR/06/210/2002 dated June 26, 2002 prescribed under Regulation 77 of the SEBI(Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 read with Clauses 1, 9 and 13 of the Code of Conduct of Intermediaries of Mutual Funds. And many more,not possible to known to me/domain of SEBI/R.B.I.If action can be taken against HSBC,why not against StanChart,I wonder!

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)