Companies & Sectors
Company Law Board stops Uninor from auctioning its asset

Uninor on 1st August invited potential bidders and said its majority owner, Norway's Telenor, is willing to pay Rs4,190 crore for its 30 million customers and assets in case no other bidder turns up

 
New Delhi: The Company Law Board on Thursday stopped telecom operator Uninor from auctioning its assets, reports PTI.
 
"I allow the application and injunct the respondent (Uninor) from taking any steps whatsoever in pursuance to the auction notice published on 1st August or similar notices that may have been published," CLB Chairman Justice DR Deshmukh said in his order.
 
Uninor is a joint venture telecom company between Norway's Telenor and realty major Unitech.
 
Uninor on 1st August invited potential bidders to express interest by 6th August and said its majority owner, Norway's Telenor, was willing to pay Rs4,190 crore for its 30 million customers and assets in case no other bidder turns up.
 
This move was opposed strongly by Unitech, which hold 32.75% stake in Uninor, and approached CLB against the notice.
 
Telenor wants to scrap the joint venture with Unitech and migrate its business to a new company to seek fresh operating licences as the JV's 22 telecom permits were among the 122 quashed by the Supreme Court in February.
 
Uninor had said it wanted to auction the company's business, including its assets, while it is a going concern before the 7th September deadline set by the apex court for winding up of operations of all the firms whose licences had been cancelled.
 
Uninor has approached Delhi High Court which modified CLB stay order on the auction and allowed Uninor to receive till August 8 the expressions of interest (EoI) from bidders interested in purchasing the company's business.
 
"Let the auction process continue and it would be clarified (in the order) that nothing will be confirmed till the CLB finally decides the matter," the High Court said on the application filed by Uninor.
 

User

PIL against SEBI consent orders gains strength

Delhi High Court allows Midas Touch Investors Association to be impleaded into the public interest litigation against SEBI’s artibrary Consent Orders

 
Despite strenuous objections by the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) the Delhi High Court has allowed Midas Touch Investors Association’s application for impleadment in the public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the regulator’s powers to settle cases through its ‘Consent’ orders. 
 
The original PIL filed by one Deepak Khosla against SEBI in 2011 had brought the entire consent proceedings to a halt. Mr Khosla had challenged the very statutory basis of SEBI consent mechanism. 
 
Interestingly, on 8th August, the Delhi High Court bench of justices AK Sikri and Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, overruled some strenuous objections and pleadings by SEBI and allowed the investor association to be impleaded in the case. SEBI’s counsel had argued that Midas should file a fresh PIL in the matter and that its action in impleading itself was ‘motivated’ and filed “with a view to lend credibility to the petition” and gain publicity. SEBI had clearly been hoping that its revised consent guidelines would be accepted by the high court and with it the original PIL filed by Mr Khosla, a businessman, would not survive. 
 
This is ironic, since it is Midas Touch’s celebrated case in the 1990s after the Harshad Mehta scam that forced bank mutual funds such as Canbank Mutual Fund’s Canstar to pay the ‘assured’ returns it had promised investors. It is also well-known for its PIL in the aftermath of the IPO (initial Public Offerings) mania in what is better known as the “Vanishing Companies saga”. These are companies which looted investors by floating public issues and vanishing with the funds. Midas Touch, also a SEBI accredited investor association, has been running an Investor Helpline supported by the ministry of corporate affairs.
 
In the impleadment application [CM No 4200 of 2012 in WP(C ) No 6949 of 2011] Ms Madhumita Bhattacharjee, the counsel for Midas Touch said that the NGO can bring additional facts before the court and assist in dispensing justice. The court, while allowing the application, said that Midas “shall not repeat the contentions raised in the PIL”.
 
Midas Touch has said that consent guidelines issued by SEBI, besides being illegal, have been grossly abused. It referred to the  recommendations of  a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) constituted in the wake of the Ketan Parekh scam. The JPC had identified certain corporate entities that colluded with Ketan Parekh (identified as the central figure of the securities scam) and asked SEBI, the ministry of corporate affairs as well as investigation and enforcement agencies to investigate the nexus between them. 
 
Instead of investigating these as asked by the JPC, several of these have been settled using the consent mechanism. In effect, the cases have been selttled “in defiance of the will of the Parliament”, says the NGO. It cites the example of Himachal Fututristic Communications whose matter was settled by SEBI through consent order on payment of Rs10 rore in 2010, and the entire consent process spanning nearly two years, was not reported to the Parliament in the Action Taken Reports. (The cases against Global Tele has also be disposed off by SEBI, while that of the Zee Group was settled via adjudication proceedings and it was let off with a warning and no penal action whatsoever). 
 
Midas’ application stated that the PIL petition of Deepak Khosla has not raised the fact of constitution, investigation, report, recommendations of JPC and action taken reports thereon laid before the Parliament. Midas Touch Investors pointed out that it was one of the eight unconnected organizations/individuals invited by the JPC to depose before it on the scam. Hence, impleading it in the case, would enable it to help the court dispense justice, said Midas’ counsel.
 
Virendra Jain, president of Midas Touch points out that the revision of consent guidelines subsequent to its impleadment application does not make the mechanism legal. The Delhi High Court decision, we believe, has considerably strengthened the case against SEBI’s consent regime. It is important to remember that Midas Touch and investor associations such as Moneylife Foundation (which is a sister entity of Moneylife magazine and a not-for-profit organization) are not the only ones to believe that the consent mechanism is used by SEBI to let off the guilty. Dr Mohan Gopal, a legal luminary, who was a director on the SEBI board has also criticized its working in an explosive letter to the prime minister of India. Please read: Dr Mohan Gopal’s explosive exposé of SEBI’s functioning under Bhave.
 
Moneylife has repeatedly pointed out how the spirit of the consent mechanism has been vitiated by SEBI, by allowing the same persons, entities or intermediaries to file consent and get away by paying a fine. In most cases, the details of the charges filed by SEBI are unclear since the consent order is deliberately opaque; worse, and similar offenses have led to widely divergent payments under the consent terms. 
Also read  Con by Consent.  
 

User

COMMENTS

nagesh kini

4 years ago

The Court ought to order that the business of Consent Orders be put an immediate end to as it is rampantly abused and the big fish get away paying peanuts only to get back with impunity to carry old tricks - incorrigible too!

P M Ravindran

4 years ago

Thanks for these informative reports. But I am amoung those who believe that looking for justice in our courts is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Anyhow, even then it is not a hopeless situation, is it? May I also ask : what is the credibility or culpability of the credit rating agencies?

REPLY

Rajkumar Singh

In Reply to P M Ravindran 4 years ago

That is why Thumb Down option is not there in Facebook.

Thumb Up - Credibility,

Thumb Down - Culpability!

Rajkumar Singh

In Reply to P M Ravindran 4 years ago

That is why Thumb Down option is not there in Facebook.

Thumb Up - Credibility,

Thumb Down - Culpability!

Rajkumar Singh

In Reply to P M Ravindran 4 years ago

No culpability, only credibility! Just like Facebook, you like it for its credibility. If you don't like it, no culpability.

You may have selected a politician for his/her credibility, but you can't de-select or reject him/his for culpability.

Rajkumar Singh

In Reply to P M Ravindran 4 years ago

No culpability, only credibility! Just like Facebook, you like it for its credibility. If you don't like it, no culpability.

You may have selected a politician for his/her credibility, but you can't de-select or reject him/his for culpability.

Vikas Gupta

4 years ago

SEBI is totally working against investors. I have reported a no. of Complaints to SEBI as well as SCORES, but all my complaints had been settled not in the Investors Interests & not even communicated by SEBI.

REPLY

Rajkumar Singh

In Reply to Vikas Gupta 4 years ago

I understand that SEBI is just a regulatory body, and has no power or authority to initiate any action. It acts as a messenger on behalf of the complainant to remind the erring companies.

Moneylife should be knowing the competent authority or the aggrieved party has to approach Moneylife for resolving the issue.

Rajkumar Singh

4 years ago

We appreciate the painstaking efforts of the Moneylife Team, in their mission to spread the financial literacy, which has been the voice of aggrieved parties, and always remained the voice of investors or savers.

"Hail Moneylife"!

Wishing you a great success.

Rajkumar Singh

4 years ago

We appreciate the painstaking efforts of the Moneylife Team, in their mission to spread the financial literacy, which has been the voice of aggrieved parties, and always remained the voice of investors or savers.

"Hail Moneylife"!

Wishing you a great success.

Home Minister Shinde forced to eat his words, apologise in Rajya Sabha

Shinde while snapping at Jaya Bachchan for interrupting him said, his reply to the Assam violence issue is a serious matter and not the subject of a film, which angered other members

 
New Delhi: Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde was on Thrusday forced to eat his words and apologise in the Rajya Sabha after he made unwarranted remarks about SP member Jaya Bachchan triggering an uproar, reports PTI.
 
Shinde was replying to a short duration debate on the Assam violence and Bachchan, a well known cine actress interrupted to say that the minister was not responding to specific queries raised by members.
 
"This is a serious matter. This is not the subject of a film," Shinde said snapping at Ms Bachchan for interrupting him.
 
Jaya Bachchan took serious objection to the home minister's comment and was joined by other members triggering an uproar in the House.
 
Leader of the Opposition Arun Jaitley said Bachchan is a distinguished celebrity and a member of the House and "as Home Minister of India, you cannot taunt her in this House. I will urge the Home Minister to make amends and withdraw comments so that the House can proceed".
 
Shinde initially persisted, saying that Bachchan was not doing the right thing by interrupting when the Home Minister was speaking in the house.
 
At this Jaitley sought the intervention of Tariq Anwar, who was in the Chair, asking for a deletion of Shinde's remarks if he was not willing to withdraw them.
 
Shinde then said, "If she is hurt by my comments, I apologise for that. She is my sister." The Home Minister maintained that he knew the entire Bachchan family and "I have great respect" (for them).
 
Significantly, the Home Minister concluded his reply abruptly amid protests by Opposition members that he had left important questions unanswered.
 
Taking a dig at Shinde for repeating what he had said on the issue in Lok Sabha yesterday, Balbir Punj (BJP) likened him to a student "who memorises his subject on the previous night and repeats the same regardless of the questions". Some members were heard shouting that Shinde should be sent back to his home state.
 
 
 
 

User

COMMENTS

nagesh kini

4 years ago

In the Lok Sabha, the Leader of the Opposition Advani goofed with his "Illegitimacy" remark that the speaker had to order to be expunged if not retracted.
Now the amcha Shinde thought he could get away by beating about the bush in answering a valid question. Would it have made any difference if the question was posed by a criminally charged MP or a wrestler and not a film star?
The same Balbir Punj of BJP, in his response to why the MPs blow up crores in study tours abroad - why not when mantris,shantris and babus spurge why not allow the MPs? Any takers?

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)