While publishing a list of these defaulters, the CCI said these penalties, totalling Rs2.17 crore, are pending for up to over two years
Fair trade regulator Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Tuesday said it will initiate recovery proceedings against actor Aamir Khan, two film producers' associations and six others for failing to pay penalties imposed on them.
CCI, while publishing a list of these defaulters, said these penalties, totalling Rs2.17 crore, are pending for up to over two years despite there being no appeal filed or appeal having been dismissed.
Pending penalty against Aamir Khan stood at Rs1 lakh only, which was imposed as part of an order passed against 27 film producers on 25 May 2011, in a case related to anti-competition practices by film makers.
This order was passed pursuant to a complaint filed with the CCI by FICCI-Multiplex Association of India (MAI).
Besides Aamir Khan, CCI said “appropriate action” against eight other entities would also be taken. These include IATA Agents Association of India, Telangana Telugu Film Distributors Association, Film Distributors Association, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh Film Chamber of Commerce.
Among the nine entities, the All India Organisation of Chemists & Druggists has to pay the highest penalty of little over Rs1.47 crore, according to the regulator.
CCI, which keeps a check on any unfair trade practices at the market place, said it has decided to take suitable and appropriate steps to recover unpaid penalties from parties that have been imposed under the Competition Act, 2002.
“CCI could initiate prosecution under Section 42(3) of the Competition Act for not complying with the orders of the Commission and follow—up reference to Income Tax Department could be made for action on recovery certificates already issued to these entities,” it added.
For an individual, BSE has set minimum tangible assets worth Rs1 lakh. Also, it would charge a one-time fee of Rs15,000 for membership
Following directives from market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the BSE on Tuesday allowed mutual fund (MF) distributors to use its infrastructure for purchase and redemption of mutual fund units directly from asset management companies (AMCs) on behalf of their clients.
In a circular, BSE said that an entity seeking to register itself as MF distributor on its mutual fund platform in a move to use the Exchange’s infrastructure is required to have a networth of at least Rs1 lakh on the basis of audited balance sheet of the latest financial year.
For an individual, the exchange has set minimum tangible assets worth Rs1 lakh. Also, the exchange would charge a one-time fee of Rs15,000 for membership. MF distributors would not handle payout and pay-in of funds as well as units on behalf of investor.
“The pay-in will be directly received by recognised Clearing Corporation and payout will be directly made to investor’s account.
“In the same manner, units shall be credited and debited directly from the demat account of the investors by the Clearing Corporation,” BSE said.
Earlier this month, SEBI had cleared the proposal to allow MF distributors to use the infrastructure of recognised exchanges for purchase and redemption of mutual fund units directly from AMCs on behalf of their clients. This would be in addition to the existing channels of MF distribution.
The move is aimed at leveraging the stock exchange platform, which would eventually help MF distributors to improve their reach.
This facility would be available only for a MF distributor registered with Association of Mutual Funds in India (AMFI) and those who have been permitted by the stock exchange concerned would be eligible for this purpose.
The stock exchange would grant permission on a request made by a AMFI-registered MF distributor on the basis of criteria, including fee and code of conduct, among others, as laid down by it.
This is with regard to “Grossly Underperforming Star Performers” by Jason Monteiro. What is your advice to investors who are holding HDFC Top 200 or HDFC Top Equity schemes? These two schemes were also featured in equity schemes for ‘any season’ in the
18 October 2012 issue of Moneylife.
This is with regard to “What causes obesity and bulimia?” by Prof Dr Hegde. I find all your articles very informative. They give a whole new perspective on medicine and health. They are like fresh air in the midst of manipulative, harmful, loaded information coming from the media. Please keep writing.
This is with regard to “NSEL fallout: ICAI begins probing Financial Technologies, NSEL issues.” Delightful! The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India still has no clue about what is to be done. Seems to be infested with morons at all ends.
Not Charitable Institutions!
This is with regard to “RBI says no zero percent interest scheme for buying consumer goods.” Festive season shoppers and credit card users know this. After all, no financial institution (FI) will offer 0% EMI (equated monthly instalment) and not earn anything for the service. FIs are shrewd businesses and not charitable institutions. This move by RBI will force them to re-phrase their schemes; and, perhaps, make the charges more transparent and easy to compute.
This is with regard to “Repo rate hike cannot act as an effective measure in taming inflation” by Vivek Sharma. Good observations, but is likely to fall on deaf ears. Such increases have only put a brake on growth without doing anything for inflation, caused by high oil prices and high fiscal deficit due to populist policies. This has, in turn, stoked inflation by pumping liquidity into rural areas. RBI should have learnt from the lack of correlation between the interest rate and inflation rate by this time. Unfortunately, old habits die hard and RBI continues to flog a dead horse.
Call the Bluff!
This is with regard to “RBI’s New Financial Inclusion Committee: Rife with conflicts of interests” by Ramesh S Arunanchalam. This article is very pertinent. It is important that we call the bluff. First of all, the committee is not even needed. Secondly, why fill it with people from commercial microfinance alone? Where are the representatives of cooperatives and cooperative banks? And could the country not field people who don’t have conflict of interest? Or maybe this is an exercise in promoting vested interests?