Court asks police to probe if Shinde, Chidambaram ‘cheated’ on Telangana

During the all-party meeting convened by the Centre on Telangana in New Delhi on 28th December last year, Shinde had said the issue would be resolved within a month while Chidambaram, on 9 December 2009 had announced on initiating process to create Telangana state

Hyderabad: A local court on Monday directed police to investigate into the allegations whether Union ministers Sushilkumar Shinde and P Chidambaram ‘cheated’ the people of Telangana region by their statements on the statehood issue, reports PTI.


Based on a complaint filed by Telangana Junior Advocates’ Association president Naresh Kumar, the Second Metropolitan Magistrate Court directed the LB Nagar police to investigate into the matter and file a status report before it by 14th February.


Kumar, in his petition, had mentioned about the statements of Shinde and Chidambaram on the Telangana issue and sought the court’s directions to refer the matter to the police for investigation under section 420 (cheating) of the IPC.


During the all-party meeting convened by the Centre on Telangana in New Delhi on 28th December last year, home minister Sushilkumar Shinde had said the Telangana issue would be resolved within a month.


On 9 December 2009, the then Union home minister P Chidambaram had announced on initiating process to create Telangana state. However, on 23 December 2009 Chidambaram modified the statement following an agitation in coastal Andhra and Rayalseema regions of Andhra Pradesh.


Meanwhile, Cyberabad Police Commissioner Ch Dwaraka Tirumala Rao said they were yet to receive the court orders in this regard.


Asked if the police would lodge any case against the Union ministers, the senior police officer said, “We have to first go through the order copy and act accordingly.”




4 years ago

This can not come under sec.420,as they have told what Cabinet Committee is thinking then or what their ministry's duty for solving a problem.Their wording should have more Diplomatic , instead of Bluntly telling so,as it is not in his Individual's Control.Advocates should have Probed which section attracts Punishment for this Lapse,instead of falling prey to Politicians Shoutings.(1)First statement of Mr.Chidambaram gave a firm impression to all AP people as though Telangana is being Formed/Given to which Telaganites celebrated while seemandhra politicians started resigning.Surprised Chidambaram clarified quickly,Prolonging Solution to the Problem.With these sudden developments after getting assurance from home minister to give Telangana,Students got depressed and started commiting Suicides misguided by Politicians Words that Sacrifies will bring Telangana and their repeated challenges to GOI How many students have to commit Suicides for telangana formation.Thus many Politicians Cheated CommonMen/Women/Children in telangana struggle.Hence the remedy is only to appoint a committee to study and Prescribe Ethics to Politician.Their Provocative Statements to get Popularity and Scolding like street Rowdies to Chop off Othergroups Hands / calling them Shameless People,etc should be attractable for Prosecution.Politicions Self Proclimed Immunity from Prosecution-lead / enabled them to directly accuse/Scold,in the name of Democracy,Not heard in Western/Europeon Countries.

BSE Sensex, Nifty remains trapped in a range: Monday Closing Report

The RBI has to make a big rate cut to surprise the market. This seems unlikely. The Nifty’s direction will be known only after that

The market ended flat on nervousness ahead of the RBI’s quarterly credit policy, to be announced tomorrow. As of now, the market remains trapped in a range. The RBI has to make a big rate cut to surprise the market. This seems unlikely. The Nifty’s direction will be known only after that. The National Stock Exchange (NSE) recorded a volume of 62.07 crore shares and advance-decline of 870:815.


The Indian market opened in the green tracking its Asian peers which were higher in morning trade on the on the positive trend in Chinese industrial companies and reports that the South Korean consumer confidence climbed to the highest level in eight months in January. However, nervousness was evident among domestic investors a day ahead of the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) review of its monetary policy.


The Nifty opened seven points higher at 6,082 and the Sensex resumed trade at 20,129, a rise of 25 points over its previous close. Buying in realty, banking and auto stocks led the market to its intraday high in early trade. At the highs, the Nifty rose to 6,088 and the Sensex went up to 20,172.


However, profit taking at the highs saw the benchmarks paring their early gains amid volatile trade. Selling pressure in oil & gas, power, consumer durables and capital goods sectors pushed the market into the red in late morning trade. The decline led the market to its lows at around 12.30pm. At the lows, the Nifty fell to 6,061 and the Sensex declined to 20,063.


The market fluctuated between losses and gains in amid intense choppiness as the European markets opened flat. The benchmarks continued their sideways movement in late trade in the absence of any triggers and nervousness ahead of the central bank’s policy review on Tuesday.


The market closed flat as investors await the RBI’s policy review. The Nifty added 0.15 points 6,075 while the Sensex shed 0.18 points to settle at 20,103.


Among the broader markets, the BSE Mid-cap index rose 0.02% and the Mid-cap index gained 0.27%.


The min sectoral gainers were BSE Realty (up 1.84%); BSE Auto (up 1.03%); BSE Bankex (up 0.68%); BSE IT (up 0.44%) and BSE Metal (up 0.28%. The key losers were BSE Oil & Gas (down 1.14%); BSE Consumer Durables (down 0.91%); BSE Capital Goods (down 0.65%); BSE Power (down 0.52%) and BSE PSU (down 0.46%).


Fifteen of the 30 stocks on the Sensex closed in the positive. The chief gainers were Tata Motors (up 2.49%); Hero MotoCorp (up 1.84%); Hindalco Industries (up 1.72%); Sterlite Industries (up 1.60%) and ICICI Bank (up 1.52%). The top losers were ONGC (down 1.76%); Reliance Industries (down 1.56%); Hindustan Unilever (down 0.98%); NTPC (down 0.97%) and State Bank of India (down 0.92%).


The top two A Group gainers on the BSE were—Bharat Electronics (up 5.34%) and Adani Ports and SEZ (up 4.86%).

The top two A Group losers on the BSE were—Adani Power (down 4.40%) and Jain Irrigation (down 3.88%).


The top two B Group gainers on the BSE were—Nouveau Global Ventures (up 19.93%) and LGB Forge (up 19.63%).

The top two B Group losers on the BSE were—DHP India (down 14.14%) and Shasun Pharmaceuticals (down 12.79%).


Out of the 50 stocks listed on the Nifty, 23 stocks settled in the positive. The major gainers were DLF (up 2.83%); Tata Motors (up 2.52%); Axis Bank (up 2.18%); Hero MotoCorp (up 1.99%) and HCL Technologies (up 1.84%). The main losers were Reliance Infrastructure (down 2.37%); Jaiprakash Associates (down 1.96%); ONGC (down 1.79%); RIL (down 1.69%) and UltraTech Cement Company (down 1.65%).


Markets in Asia closed mostly lower on concerns of subdued corporate earnings. The Nikkei, which hit its 32-month high in intraday trade, settled lower.


The Shanghai Composite jumped 2.415; the Hang Seng gained 0.395; the Straits Times rose 0.14% and the Taiwan Weighted advanced 0.55%. On the other hand, the Jakarta Composite lost 0.47%; the Nikkei 225 declined 0.94% and the Seoul Composite fell 0.365.


At the time of writing, the key European indices were flat with two of the three benchmarks marginally lower. At the same time, the US stock futures were trading with minor gains.


Back home, foreign institutional investors were net buyers of shares totalling Rs586.87 crore on Friday while domestic institutional investors were net sellers of equities amounting to Rs331.91 crore.


Pharma major Glenmark Pharmaceuticals’ US subsidiary, Glenmark Generics, has received the US health regulator's approval to market Mupirocin Calcium Cream, used for treating skin diseases, in the American market. According to IMS Health sales data for the twelve-month period ending September 2012, the product generated sales of $56.5 million. Glenmark Pharma declined 1.58% to close at Rs506.80 on the NSE.


Wind power major Suzlon Energy today said it has received an order for supplying turbines for setting up a 22 MW project in Tamil Nadu. The project comprises nine units of 1.25 MW and five units of 2.1 MW wind turbines," Suzlon Energy said in a statement. The stock gained 1.66% to close at Rs21.45 on the NSE.


Adani Ports & SEZ’s board of directors has decided, in principle, to divest its significant stake in entities controlling the Abbot Point Coal Terminal in Queensland, Australia, to the Adani family, subject to requisite approvals, formalities and clearances, at a valuation determines by an independent valuer. The move would enable the company to focus on the high growth Indian ports and logistics sector and maintain its leadership position in India. The stock jumped 5.49% to close at Rs137.45 on the NSE.


RBI advises banks, financial institutions to provide data to new credit bureaus

Following a complaint by Moneylife Foundation, the RBI has asked banks, FIs to share historical data with new credit bureaus, of which they had become members

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has asked banks and financial institutions (FIs) to provide historical data to new credit information companies. “Banks/FIs, which have become member/members of the new credit information companies (CICs) have been advised to also provide historical data in order to enable the new CICs to validate their software and develop a robust database,” the central bank said in its reply to Moneylife Foundation.


This was in response to a complaint filed by Moneylife Foundation to Dr D Subbarao, governor, RBI on 13 December 2012 about the mess in credit bureaus and how it affects savers.


The Foundation, through a day-long workshop and counselling on credit reports and issues and through few case studies, also discovered that most of the lenders only look at CIBIL data while others don’t even bother to look at a credit report at all before making lending decisions.


The financial literacy initiative of Moneylife Foundation, has led to the discovery that credit-tracking remains faulty in several ways. The Foundation also discovered that licensing of four credit bureaus without a level playing field, in terms of access to credit information and historical data, has created a system that is not functioning as it was supposed to.


Read: Credit scores are a big zero


Moneylife Foundation’s complaint says, “It is imperative that the mechanism to track credit by the four credit bureaus has to be fair and uniform. At any rate, the hapless saver cannot be made to bear the brunt of it. Nor can s/he be asked to get a score from each credit bureau because lenders are not willing to share data with each of them.”


Separately, the RBI also confirmed that one can obtain his/her own credit report from the banks by paying just Rs50. This fact was pointed out by R Gopalkrishnan, former deputy general manager (DGM) in the Customer Services Department at RBI and now a counsellor with Disha Financial Counselling during the day-long workshop and counselling on credit issues.


He told us that customers can avoid the whole credit bureau route by asking the lender to provide their credit report for just Rs50 or even for Rs10 under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This fact was not known to us and even the credit bureaus were unaware about it.


In the reply, the RBI has said that in response to a number of complaints from customers, who were unable to get their own credit report from banks, it had already instructed banks to provide a copy of the credit information obtained by them from the CIC to the customer upon receipt of such request. (Here is the RBI circular)


Moneylife Foundation submitted that rules pertaining to credit bureaus, in so much as they affect customers and individuals, may be framed in consultation with the customers and at the least, the RBI’s own customer services department, which probably receives customer feedback.


Read: Credit Information: Discredited Bureaus


Also, based on research and feedback from several seminars, workshops held across the country, Moneylife Foundation requested the RBI to take urgent steps on following points…


1. Mandate that all lenders share data with every credit bureau so that there is a level playing field. If not, the RBI must inform customers that only CIBIL has comprehensive data.

2. Mandate that lenders share all past data for all borrowers.

3. Mandate that every kind of borrowing be shared by all lenders to make it comprehensive.

4. Create a system where data goes into a secure pool or FTP server from which it can be equally accessed by all credit bureaus—this is in the interest of fairness to customers.

5. Ensure that an individual should be able to apply to just one credit bureau and be assured that the credit record obtained will be the same with the other three. Better still, the RBI note that allows a borrower to obtain a credit report from the lender by paying Rs50 must be publicised.

6. Ensure that data is cleaned so that borrowing is accurately reflected. Ask banks to correct their data whenever appropriate.

7. Put in place a mechanism to verify that the bureaus are collecting, collating information in a fair manner and have an appropriate mechanism for grievance handling.


The RBI, in its reply, said that some of the issues raised by Moneylife Foundation are under its consideration. “We further advice that the other issues raised in the (Foundation’s) letter are being looked into and will be taken up appropriately with CICs and credit institutions for bringing about improvement in the Credit Information System,” the central bank said.




3 years ago

Many of my accounts closed before 2005 are being reported in my cibil report.
Find below the faq information on cibil website . I have checked the CIC Act by RBI couldn't find any info as said by CIBIL. Can someone point me to the RBI circular on how long the credit info being reported?.

For how long will the details of the account reflect in my credit report?

As per the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 governing Credit Information Companies, all accounts irrespective of their status (both Good Standing and Delinquent accounts) have to be maintained for a minimum period of 7 years from the date the account was last reported.


Raju Shah

In Reply to Rajesh 3 years ago

It is true that information should be maintained for seven year but bank should report as early as possible I.e not after five years. It is not intention of the legislature or RBI according to various principles of regulation, other laws etc


4 years ago

I won a consumer court case against SBI cards and recieved compensation as the case was decided ex-parte , SBI cards did not bother to appear in the court. A few years later they give my details to CIBIL database. What kind of injustice is this? Why did CIBIL did not afford me an opportunity to explain , before including my details in the database. Is this fair? SBI cards did not bother to come to court to explain the situation.
Please help and advise

[email protected]


Sucheta Dalal

In Reply to sashi 4 years ago

Greetings. There is a simple way to correct it online on CIBIL's website. Otherwise to contact Moneylife and meet the Disha Counsellor for free help. It can be resolved fairly easily.
But yes, we agree that SBI played a dirty trick.
Do read our cover on credit scores:


In Reply to Sucheta Dalal 4 years ago

Thanks Sucheta , will give it a try. CIBIL , should ask SBI whether the consumer had filed any case in the court. As it now looks , it is pretty one way traffic , CIBIL is just waiting to oblige the card companies.


4 years ago

I won a consumer court case against SBI cards and recieved compensation as the case was decided ex-parte , SBI cards did not bother to appear in the court. A few years later they give my details to CIBIL database. What kind of injustice is this? Why did CIBIL did not afford me an opportunity to explain , before including my details in the database. Is this fair? SBI cards did not bother to come to court to explain the situation.
Please help and advise

[email protected]

Ajay Sengupta

4 years ago

Seems like the author is more concerned about the other buereau's such as Experian and Equifax than actually caring about the Indian customers. How does data parity among bureaus help customers? Customers are happy going to one bureau and pulling out a report. However, the report needs to be accurate and the solution for this isn't what the author is suggesting - because, there isn't any validation that the other (newer) bureaus can match better than the existing bureau.

If Moneylife foundation really cared about customers and Ms. Sucheta Dalal truly wants to make an impact, than she should fight for one free report per customer with RBI (a system that has been effectively implemented in emerging markets). However, what I see that the incentives are misaligned to get newer bureau the edge and in reality no one cares about the customers. (Besides Point 3 which I of course agree with that the INR 50 for a credit report should be publicised more). So, really, as an educated customer with experience of living and working across the world, I am completely disheartened with the recommendations put forward by monelife.



In Reply to Ajay Sengupta 4 years ago

Dear Mr Sengupta,
Thanks for your comment on an article published five months ago. Let me refresh your views. First of all, it was our efforts, especially our managing editor Sucheta Dalal, that resulted in customers at least getting access to their credit reports even by paying a small fee. The points we raised above follow a detailed research, which would go a long way in protecting customers only. In the financial system, nothing comes free and customers who think or want to be financially literate, shouldn't mind paying a small fee to know own credit history/report.
Here is an eye opener for you which tells what happens when there is a monopoly in credit bureaus.

Thanks again,

Ajay Sengupta

In Reply to MDT 4 years ago

Thanks for pointing the article out to me. I have read the article and commented on it as well.

I have nothing against moneylife or the work you guys are doing. I think it is outstanding.

However, I don't think you all understand the nuances of credit report and credit score.

Clarify the following for me -

Who do you think will benefit the MOST if all the bureaus are at the data parity? - Banks, newer Bureaus or Consumers?

What do you think will be more beneficial to a customer in short run and in long run? Empowerment of customers to get Credit report (from any of the bureaus/banks/FIs) relatively easily or by the points you have mentioned in the emails raised by you to RBI?

Please go and see how vague is it for customers to go pull a report from the bank? Why aren't any procedures on operational efficiency highlighted in the note sent to RBI?

Let me paraphrase what I am saying - bureau parity is good, but it is MORE beneficial to the newer bureaus' at this point: which I have no objection with. It's your blog and you have every right to write what you want.

What I am trying to say is there are other stronger and better steps to consumer empowerment that you guys have overlooked!

Sucheta Dalal

In Reply to Ajay Sengupta 4 years ago

With due respect, I dont think you understand the ground reality at all.

The RBI did not ask our view while framing policy. When moneylife foundation has financial strength we can challenge policy.
I our view a market like ours does not need 4 credit bureaus and we are THE ONLY ONES to have written about the mess at HIGHMARK.

So yes, given a choice we think and have written that 4 are way too much. Having set them up -- that too several years ago - RBI must ensure that each of them has complete data.

In our view, competitive forces will ensure that the newer ones will be more proactive in rectifying dubious mistakes in credit records. They may also be willing to share the information free.
Instead, the RBI has allowed CIBIL to remain a monopoly while it dubiously shares defaulter information with a paid business called credit sudhaar. Why does it do this? Isnt it anti customer? Someone raised it at our open house with the RBI deputy governor.
I am curious why a big admirer of our work, like you say you are, have not noticed that it is only the customer who benefits.

Why do your comments smell of insinuation? Is it because Experian has supported some of Moneylife Foundation's seminars? Well, let us tell you that we invited CIBIL twice -- the first time we had to arm twist them to participate (with some help from the RBI), the second time, as our guests.
As for poor Experian -- for all their help, our big effort at a credit report camp (which was an example of competition working because they offered reports on the spot at a small fee) only exposed the dangers of records and credit history that is not shared equally. It led to a memorandum and cover story, that did not benefit Experian at all.

So how about getting those yellow glasses of suspicion off and looking at what we do?
Better still, this is all social work. Since you know so much, how about volunteering your time to help Moneylife Foundation take up some of the issues that you say we should? We can do a LOT more if experienced people devoted their time in actively working at ways to BENEFIT consumers, rather than sit at a distance and lecture us about what we are not doing. We are a tiny team and work beyond what such a group can deliver. Join us and we will do a lot more.

Sucheta Dalal

In Reply to Ajay Sengupta 4 years ago

When someone posts comments without reading our efforts for consumers, it is clear there is a vested interest at work.

Moneylife has done plenty to help consumer get reports for a small fee. in fact for Rs 50 you can get it from your bank. Make the effort to read our efforts with the RBI too. But the fact that you have personalised this comment and named me speaks for your motives.

Ajay Sengupta

In Reply to Sucheta Dalal 4 years ago

Madam, I respect the work you have done. However, I speak because I understand technology and nuances of credit reporting.

All, I am saying is the points raised to RBI are helping newer bureaus than they are helping end customers. What promises that if newer bureau have the same data parity, they won't face the matching issues. Newer bureaus will have the same technical glitches as the older bureau CIBIL is facing! I promise you that even if all the bureaus have the same data, the customers will still be at loss and moreso because now each of the bureau will have a different interpretation of his credit record. If you have to fix anything please fix uniformity in the reporting of information from the bureau and add strong penalties for wrong information! Hope I have clarified myself. Thanks for your prompt response.

Sucheta Dalal

In Reply to Ajay Sengupta 4 years ago

Did you miss the comment below? WE have demanded a technology solution from the RBI. It is about sharing data uniformly. We have even said how it can be done. How is it that you are quick to judge without reading. And yes, we do talk to technology experts who tell us that it can be done. It is only our pressure that has led to the RBI setting up a task force to examine issues. But you havent noticed that, have you?

Sucheta Dalal

4 years ago

Apropos the comments below, there is a simple technology solution for data sharing in a safe manner which does not require repeated sharing of data.

So lets not get hasty about concluding what can be implemented and what cannot be done. The solutions too have been outlined to the RBI by us as well as by the new credit bureaus. What is lacking is implementation, supervision, savers feedback etc.

Wouldnt our readers be more concerned with what benefits them than worry about technology issues? I again reiterate, the solution is simple, it needs RBI to act on something that is of utmost importance to the ordinary person !

chandra shekhar

4 years ago

* every INITIATIVE made in Public or in Organisations interest need to be appreciated !
** this blog "RBI advises Banks..." should have been made Public after, it has been CONSIDERED "partially or in totality" which as Moneylife says is "under consideration" AND is being "looked into"...!!
*** all past-n-present system can be ADDRESSED if, those who have SERVED in these departments in the PAST can be re-called and are engaged to UPDATE till DATE,
with the help of new-tech. in place and those who understand the East-West-North-South of BANKING as a Whole ...!!!

Ashit Rasiklal Shroff

4 years ago

Please read as Point no:1 & not point no:4 in my below comment

Ashit Rasiklal Shroff

4 years ago

The points raised by ML to RBI are well justified. However for practical reasons the point no 4 will never get implemented due to the below mentioned reasons:
1. The lending industry is deeply spread over Public/Pvt/Foreign/Cooperative Banks/MFI's/DCB's/RRB's/NBFC's etc. The total number of lending institutes is very large somewhere in the region of 18000 & more.
2.All the four credit bureaus have their own data submission layout and are different.No two credit bureaus data submission layout is the same.
3.All the credit bureaus have invested heavily in technology (Hardware & Software)- Now to make any changes(back end database changes)to arrive at a common layout will entail additional investment.
4.All the lending institutes who are already members of a credit bureau have invested in technology( data extraction tools for submission of their data to the credit bureau- front end changes)& submission of data to all credit bureaus will be a costly affair for the smaller lenders like coop banks/nbfc.These smaller lenders cannot afford this additional cost of data submission to all the credit bureaus.
5.Why will all the lenders submit their data to all the credit bureaus and incur additional expenses without any corresponding additional benefits is the larger question? What additional benefit will they get by submitting their data to all the credit bureaus?
6.Instead of making mandatory the lending data submission to all the four credit bureaus what is required today is the mandatory submission of Suit Filed,Wilful Default data which is currently not happening.As a result ,the prime desired objectives of the CIC Act viz Fraud Prevention & NPA reduction are not met fully in the current scenario.

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



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)