IDFC Mutual Fund’s new issue opens on 28th January and closes on 31st January
IDFC Mutual Fund has launched IDFC Fixed Maturity Plan-100 days series-1, a close-ended income scheme.
The investment objective of the scheme is to generate income by investing in a portfolio of debt and money market instruments maturing before the maturity of the scheme.
The new issue opens on 28th January and closes on 31st January. The minimum investment amount is Rs10,000.
CRISIL Liquid Fund Index (50%) and CRISIL Short Term Bond Fund Index (50%) are the benchmark index. Anupam Joshi is the fund manager.
Deutsche Mutual Fund’s new issue opens on 28th January and closes on 1st February
Deutsche Mutual Fund has launched DWS Fixed Term Fund-Series 81 (DFTF-81), a close-ended income scheme.
The objective of the Fund is to generate income by investing in debt and money market instruments maturing on or before the date of the maturity of the scheme. The tenor of the fund is 370 days.
The new issue opens on 28th January and closes on 1st February. The minimum investment amount is Rs5,000.
CRISIL Short Term Bond Index is the benchmark index. Kumaresh Ramkrishnan is the fund manager.
Counsel Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners against the project, contended that the state government began acquiring land for setting up a world-class university by a group, which does not have the experience of establishing even a primary school
New Delhi: The Supreme Court (SC) today ordered the Orissa government to maintain status quo on acquisition of 6,000 hectares of land for setting up an international university by UK-based Vedanta group in the holy city of Puri, reports PTI.
Admitting a bunch of cross-appeals, a bench of justices DK Jain and HL Dattu asked the state government to maintain status quo on the process to acquire the land.
Earlier, two different benches of the apex court had refused to hear the cross-appeals saying that one or the other judges had been linked to the adjudication of the issue before.
The state government and the Anil Agarwal Foundation, which promotes the project, appealed against a decision of the Orissa High Court which citing 17 reasons held that land acquisition procedures for the proposed Vedanta University project were illegal.
The high court had also directed Vedanta to return the land to its various owners.
Appearing for one of over half a dozen petitioners against the project, counsel Prashant Bhushan contended that the state government began acquiring land for setting up of a world-class university by a group, which does not have the experience of establishing even a primary school.
He also contended that Land Acquisition Company Rules, 1963, had not been properly followed by the state government.
The high court had given its verdict on two public interest lawsuits and six individual petitions, challenging the state government’s notification on the land acquisition procedures.
Another petitioner opposing the project contended that the proposed multi-disciplinary university project would cause extreme debilitating impact on the eco-system as well as the local bio-diversity.
Yet another petitioner, who is opposing the project, is Congress leader Umaballav Rath. He had earlier filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the high court challenging the varsity project on the ground that it was envisaged on 500 acres of the temple land.
The petitioners also pointed out that the proposed site for the university was close to Balukhand Konark Black Buck Sanctuary and a river.
The petitioners had also questioned the status of the company saying it was not properly formed as per the Company’s Act.
The status quo was ordered by the bench of justices of Mr Jain and Mr Dattu. Earlier, an apex court bench of justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly recused itself from adjudicating the issue on 21st January.
Nearly a fortnight before that on 5th January, another bench of justices RV Raveendran and AK Patnaik withdrew from the case.
The bench of justices Singhvi and Ganguly withdrew from the case as Justice Ganguly had dealt with it earlier as the chief justice of the Orissa High Court.
The bench of justices Mr Raveendran and Mr Patnaik refused to hear the issue to avoid any conflict of interest as Justice Patnaik hailed from Orissa.