DLF, in its petition, had sought quashing of SEBI’s order, issued on 20th October, for investigation into the allegations of complainant Kimsuk Krishna Sinha in 2007 against it and Sudipti Estates
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday imposed a cost of Rs2 lakh on realty major DLF while dismissing its plea against the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (SEBI) order to probe an allegation that it duped a city-based businessman of Rs34 crore in collusion with its associate firm Sudipti Estates, reports PTI.
Justice Vipin Sanghi turned down DLF’s plea against the market regulator's order, saying “I dismiss the writ petition with costs quantified at Rs2 lakh. Cost to be paid within four weeks.”
The judge dismissed the DLF plea saying the SEBI order against it was “based on reasons”.
“A perusal of the impugned order (of SEBI) shows that it certainly cannot be said that it has been passed arbitrarily or is irrational. The impugned order is clearly based on reasons which are relevant and material,” it said.
DLF, in its petition, had sought quashing of SEBI’s order, issued on 20th October, for investigation into the allegations of complainant Kimsuk Krishna Sinha in 2007 against it and Sudipti Estates.
The court, in its 61 page judgement, said the SEBI Act has not put any bar on the market regulator to consider any evidence to form its opinion to order an investigation.
“There is no bar or impediment cast on the board by the SEBI Act to say that it would not entertain or look into evidence that the complainant may rely upon in support of his complaint made earlier, while considering whether or not to direct an investigation,” it said.
The high court said SEBI’s powers should not be restricted as it has been created to look into the issues pertaining to stock exchanges.
“There is no reason to put any such fetter on the powers of the board or to read such restrictions into the statute, which are clearly not there. The board is the sole authority created by law to deal with the complex issues which arise in the management and supervision of the securities markets. Any such restrictions, artificially introduced, would denude the Board of its powers and hamper its functioning,” it said.
DLF had, in its petition, said SEBI’s order was passed “erroneously and in blatant non-compliance with the principle of natural justice”. The court, however, rejected the plea.
The court also rejected the contention of DLF’s alleged associate Sudipti that SEBI has no authority to investigate its role as the firm’s shares have not been traded through the stock exchanges on which the regulator enjoys powers.
“SEBI by the impugned order has directed investigation into the allegations levelled by the complainant against the petitioner about the breach of the SEBI (disclosure of Investor Protection Guidelines) 2000, read with the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, and in relation to the disclosure of information required to be made in the red herring prospectus by the petitioner—DLF,” the court said.
SEBI had earlier ordered a probe into the issue of IPOs after the high court had asked it to look into the complaint of Mr Sinha against DLF Group and Sudipti Estates and pass an order in three months.
In the FIR lodged against Sudipti in Delhi, Mr Sinha had alleged the company and its directors/agents had “lured and compelled” him to transfer certain plots of land and did not fulfil the promise of developing the land and providing him higher returns.
The market regulator had said in its order that “the Securities and Exchange Board of India shall investigate into the allegations levelled by the complainant in respect of DLF and Sudipti Estates Pvt Limited.”
“The investigations would focus on violations, if any, of the provisions of the erstwhile SEBI (Disclosure and Investor Protection) Guidelines, 2000, read with relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,” SEBI had further said.
Mr Sinha had alleged Sudipti, DLF Home Developers and DLF Estate Developers were sister concerns inextricably linked and were part of the DLF Group.
DLF has, however, maintained Sudipti is a separate legal entity owned and controlled by different individuals.
The construction major in a draft red herring prospectus (DRHP), filed for a public issue in May 2006, had mentioned that Sudipti was its associate company.
The DRHP, however, had been withdrawn and thereafter, it filed a fresh prospectus in January 2007 wherein Sudipti was not mentioned as an associate.
The two new share sale methods announced by SEBI are the institutional placement programme and the offer for sale through the stock exchanges. The move is expected to enhance public shareholding in listed companies
Mumbai: In a move to fast-track the sale of promoters’ equity in listed companies to meet minimum public shareholding norms, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on Monday opened a new window for share sales and relaxed buyback rules, reports PTI.
The decision taken by the market regulator ahead of the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday will pave the way for the top 100 companies, including blue-chip PSUs like ONGC, IOC, SAIL, BHEL and NTPC, to offload their equity expeditiously.
The government is running against time to meet its ambitious disinvestment target of Rs40,000 crore for the current fiscal.
The decisions taken at SEBI’s board meeting here will provide an enabling framework for expeditious sale of PSU equities.
These include a new mechanism called an ‘Institutional Placement Programme (IPP)’ that would allow promoters to sell up to 10% of their capital through an auction.
“The following additional methods, viz. Institutional Placement Programme (IPP) and Offer for Sale of Shares through the Stock Exchange for the Purpose of Compliance with SCRR Requirements, are being introduced,” SEBI said in a statement after the board meeting.
As per government norms, at least 10% of the shareholding in all listed state-owned companies should be with the public, while in the case of private sector companies, the minimum public shareholding should be 25%.
The announcement comes within days of the government allowing foreign individuals to directly invest in the stock market with a view to boost the market sentiment.
SEBI said under the IPP mode, companies would be required to simultaneously file a red herring prospectus/prospectus with the market regulator, the Registrar of Companies and stock exchanges.
Using this method, it said “public shareholding can be increased by 10% or such lesser percentage as is required to comply with the minimum public shareholding requirement.”
Under the new mechanism, the offer would be restricted to Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIBs), it said. A minimum of 25% of the offer would be reserved for mutual funds and insurance companies.
The company or promoter would announce an indicative floor price or price band at least one day prior to the opening of the offer, it said.
Issuers shall endeavour to maximise the number of allottees in order to ensure wider distribution of shares, it said, adding that there shall be at least 10 allottees in every IPP issuance. Furthermore, no single investor shall receive allotment for more than 25% of the offer size.
The regulator also allowed the stock exchange to offer a separate window for the purpose of such sales.
The duration of this window would co-exist with the normal trading hours, it said.
As per the board decision, it said, the offer shall be for at least 1% of the paid-up capital of the company, subject to a minimum of Rs25 crore.
“Only the promoter/promoter group of companies which are active/eligible for trading would be permitted to offer their shares for sale. Promoter/promoter group of the company would not be permitted to bid for the shares,” it said.
Allotment would be done either on price priority or a clearing price basis proportionately and would be overseen by the exchanges, it added.
Homeopathy is as scientific as is modern medicine. If a sensible doctor that knows both the systems well tries for a good combination many present day incurable diseases could be managed to the extent possible
I believe that we are solely responsible for our choices, and we have to accept the consequences of every deed, word, and thought throughout our lifetime—Elisabeth Kubler-Ross
There is a raging controversy over homeopathy, especially in the west. One of the London newspapers has a weekly column by a young modern medical doctor writing to convince the readers that homeopathy is nothing but a fraud on the gullible public. I am sure that column is sponsored by some vested interests and the author might not have had long enough experience with modern medicine to get to know the frustrations of a conscientious practitioner about its failings. While the writer gets a full page every week, the poor chaps who have to rebut that get hardly any chance. One gets an impression from those writings that while modern medicine is perfect and is a panacea for all human ills, there is absolutely no need to look beyond its frontier and try to get succor from fraudsters in homeopathy!
Origins of homeopathy
Homeopathy, like modern medicine, started as an art based on some scientific principles in the eighteenth century by a modern medical doctor Samuel Hahnemann who was born in Meissen in Germany in the year 1755. Mr Hahnemann’s frustrations in modern medicine led him to look for help outside. While translating the materia medica of a Scottish doctor by name Cullen, Mr Hahnemann chanced upon the pharmacology of quinine. He took a very small dose of quinine which gave him almost identical symptoms of febrile illnesses. Thus was born the pharmacology of homeopathy. “Similia similibus curantur”, like cures the like, was the basic principle. Every homeopath should be a prover in the sense that s/he should try the medicine on oneself to see the symptoms in a healthy individual before using that drug for curative purposes.
Materia Medica of homeopathy
Mr Hahnemann was impressed by his studies of many other drugs like ipecac, opium, etc, and by 1810 he had collected so many similar drug reactions that the general law of homeopathy was laid by then in his book, The Organon or the art of healing. The symptom complexes that occur in healthy individuals are called “proving” or “pathogenesis.” Between the work of Mr Hahnemann and his followers hundreds of substances are added on to the homeopathic materia medica. This system claims that it is “therapy for the whole man”; consequently, is better suited for a dynamic system like the human body where reductionism has no place. There is no quarrel with allopathy as this system tries to help the body use its immune guard against a disease while allopathy tries to hit the disease on its head to get rid of it. If judiciously used in combination, they might even complement each other.
Modern Science of homeopathy
Edward Calabrese, the then director of research at Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling’s department of chemistry at Berkeley, was the one that discovered a new phenomenon called “Hormesis.” Derived from the word hormo (encourage) the new phenomenon shows that any chemical molecule in its very small doses is always bio-positive while the same drug in its larger doses could be bio-negative. Mr Calabrese’s PhD student elegantly showed that a tomato a day, containing about 25 mg of vitamin C, is very strongly bio-positive while the same vitamin C in larger doses could be dangerously bio-negative in the long run! Similar was the experience of the father of America’s hydrogen bomb, Edward Teller, who described radiation hormesis while working in the Nevada Desert to explode bombs, showing that very minute doses of radiation, in fact, could improve human health significantly while larger doses do kill. These two people got into serious trouble with their establishments for showing the truth and suffered a lot. That is for another occasion. Hormesis shows that homeopathy has a better claim on human healing compared to allopathy.
Science of water structure
Professor Rustum Roy, an octogenarian, is the father of nano and material sciences at the Penn. State University. He is of Indian origin from Bengal. A brilliant man, professor Roy, with an enviable reputation in the comity of scientific nations, all of whom have honored him with their highest awards, has been at the forefront of research on the structure of water. However, the Swedish Academy failed to recognize him despite being nominated twenty one times for the Nobel since his first ground breaking paper on Sol-Gel technique to extract nano particles in 1954. His students did get the award though. One of the reasons is that he is a humane scientist who goes after the truth ruthlessly.
His original work on the structure of the water along with the work of Professor Martin Chaplin’s at South Bank University, London, has established beyond doubt that water has a very complicated structure. Any chemical put into water changes the structure for ever and further dilutions do not change the structure. This is the signature of the chemical in water. Chemical analysis by conventional methods does not show the presence of the original chemical but the water structure remains changed as per its signature. That is how the very dilute homeopathic solutions work.
Lots of people have an idea that homeopathy is only a placebo and not effective otherwise. This is not true. That said, I must hasten to add that the so called placebo effect is now measureable scientifically. There are many studies of modern medical drugs, leading ones being the expensive anti-psychotic drugs that have been tested against placebo tablets in patients. Almost all of those drugs were less effective than the placebo in the management of depression, anxiety etc. Similar studies have been done against some pain-killers also. Curiously there were studies to find out the basis of the placebo effect in the human system. While a patient has faith in his/her doctor and takes a placebo, the forebrain produces very powerful chemicals that work on the hind brain and through that on the whole system. Studies have also tried to block the release of those powerful chemicals from the forebrain using the blocking drug Naloxone prior to the testing with placebo. Lo and behold, there was no placebo effect and there were no chemicals getting to the hind brain at all. In other words placebo effect is a reality and not pseudo-science!
Therefore, even if one were to think that homeopathy is only a placebo, it does not belittle its importance as most of our modern medical drugs are worse than placebos. The added advantage is that placebo does not have side effects as the good effects are happening through body’s own generation of healing chemicals from the forebrain. Oliver Wendell Holmes, a Harvard-trained doctor who became a poet and a writer for a living had this to say about the placebo effect of a humane doctor’s work. “The two most powerful drugs ever produced are the two kind words of a humane doctor,” he wrote and added that “if the whole materia medica could be sunk to the bottom of the seas it would be that much better for mankind but that much worse for the fishes.” That statement has to be written in golden letters today what with Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) becoming the fourth leading cause of death in the United States of America.
Homeopathy is as scientific as is modern medicine. Neither of them is perfect, though. Each one has its advantages and disadvantages in equal measure. If a sensible doctor that knows both the systems well tries for a good combination many present day incurable diseases could be managed to the extent possible. Unfortunately, there has not been significant progress in the science of homeopathy for a long time. What research happens is only repetitive but not refutative to demolish the myths and take knowledge forwards. Science suffers from this malady for some time now. To understand nature (human system) good scientists must come together to understand one another.
Division of science (method to unravel nature’s secrets) into smaller compartments will only hinder growth and understanding, like the Law of Thermodynamics which says that anything that divides ultimately disappears. Even inside these divisions there are sub-specialties. They try to know more and more about less and less until they know more and more about nothing. What we need in every field for progress is not information and knowledge but wisdom. Hope homeopathy would progress to be a real good method of relieving human suffering, especially for the minor illness syndromes, which form the bulk of sick absenteeism on any given day! It could also be a boon to the poor who bear the brunt of most illnesses but can not hope to go for top heavy prohibitively expensive modern medical methods.
Choose being kind over being right, and you'll be right every time—Richard Carlson
(Professor Dr BM Hegde, a Padma Bhushan awardee in 2010, is an MD, PhD, FRCP (London, Edinburgh, Glasgow & Dublin), FACC and FAMS. He is also the editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Science of Healing Outcomes, chairman of the State Health Society's Expert Committee, Govt of Bihar, Patna. He is former vice-chancellor of Manipal University at Mangalore and former professor for cardiology of the Middlesex Hospital Medical School, University of London. Prof Dr Hegde can be contacted at email@example.com)