Insecticides (India): Growing Fortunes

Wide distribution network and debt free balance sheet of Insecticides India Limited makes it...

Premium Content
Monthly Digital Access


Already A Subscriber?
Yearly Digital+Print Access


Moneylife Magazine Subscriber or MSSN member?

Yearly Subscriber Login

Enter the mail id that you want to use & click on Go. We will send you a link to your email for verficiation
Bombay HC declines to stay termination of Deccan Chargers

The Court's orders on two petitions effectively means that the termination of Deccan Chargers membership from the IPL would stand

Mumbai: Cash-strapped Deccan Chargers will remain terminated from the Indian Premier League (IPL) after the Bombay High Court on Thursday set aside a status quo order passed by an arbitrator on cessation of its membership in the league, reports PTI.
Hearing a petition filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), Justice RD Dhanuka quashed the status quo order passed by the arbitrator appointed by the High Court to resolve the dispute between BCCI and Deccan Chronicles Holdings Ltd (DCHL).
On another petition filed by DCHL against termination of the contract of its IPL franchise, the court refused to grant any interim relief, but said the legality of the termination would be decided by the arbitrator.
The court's orders on the two petitions effectively means that the termination of Deccan Chargers' IPL membership would stand, according to legal circles.
The arbitrator, retired supreme court judge CK Thakker, had last week passed an order for status quo to be maintained following which BCCI had moved the High Court in appeal.
"Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to grant status quo. On the same day (12th October), the High Court had denied extension of time to DCHL to furnish Rs100 crore bank guarantee as directed by the court on 1st October," Justice Dhanuka said.
He further said the arbitrator is not 'superior' to the High Court and hence cannot pass an order which overrides the Court's direction.
Criticising the plea made by DCHL before the arbitrator for status quo, the court said, "Once the High Court has rejected relief, the plea made before the arbitrator is not maintainable."
Justice Dhanuka noted that the order passed by another judge of the court on 1st October directing DCHL to furnish bank guarantee was "self operative and protective of the interests of both DCHL and BCCI".
The court also refused interim stay on termination of IPL franchise as sought by DCHL in a separate petition.
"DCHL has still not furnished bank guarantee. Hence there is no change in circumstances to grant relief to DCHL. No case is made out for interim relief for granting stay on termination. The application seeking stay is a gross abuse of law," Justice Dhanuka said.
The court, however, observed that the legality and validity of the termination would be a subject matter before the arbitrator. 
The Deccan Chargers had lost its place in the IPL on 13th October after the High Court stayed the arbitrator's order for maintaining status quo in the matter till further hearing, while BCCI declared that the termination of the IPL franchise stands following the court's order.
A day after ending the Deccan Chargers' franchise, the BCCI had begun the process of finding a new IPL team inviting bids in respect of 12 cities -- Ahmedabad, Cuttack, Noida Dharamsala, Indore, Hyderabad, Kanpur, Kochi, Nagpur, Rajkot, RanchI and Vizag.
BCCI Counsel Raju Subramaniam argued "IPL season 6 is going to commence from April next year. There are several good international players from the Deccan Chargers team who will be left high and dry if they are not included in the auction list".
The BCCI Counsel argued that DCHL was given sufficient time to submit the bank guarantee of Rs100 crore as directed by another judge of the High Court. He said "Justice Kathawala had kept DCHL and BCCI's interest in mind and asked them to submit bank guarantee if they wanted to participate in the IPL 6 season."
However, DCHL's failure to submit bank guarantee of Rs100 crore of a nationalised bank allowed BCCI to initiate action in furtherance to the termination.
Senior counsel SU Kamdar, appearing for DCHL, told the court that the company, which is in financial difficulty, should be allowed to sell the team. "To help BCCI, the company decided to go out of IPL 6 by selling the team. But the cricket board has a problem with that also," he said.
Kamla Landmarc Realty, which had shown interest in buying the IPL franchise, submitted that no prejudice would be caused to BCCI if DCHL was allowed to sell the team and go out of the IPL 6.
Ratnakar Bank, which has lent Rs55 crores to DCHL, urged the court to give DCHL a chance so that they can negotiate with prospective buyers for the IPL franchise instead of terminating the contract. If they are allowed to sell the franchise then the rights of lenders will be protected, Bank's Counsel Anjan Dasgupta submitted. 
BCCI had on 15th September decided to terminate the contract at an emergency IPL Governing Council meeting in Chennai, which was challenged by DCHL in Bombay High Court.
The court had on 1st October ordered DCHL to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs100 crore, bear all expenses for IPL 6, including making payments to BCCI towards franchise, players and support team costs. Besides, it was asked to bear the costs of conducting matches and other expenses.
In the event of any default on part of DCHL, BCCI shall be entitled to invoke the bank guarantee to the extent necessary, Justice Kathawala had ruled.
The Deccan Chargers had failed to produce Rs100-crore bank guarantee before the Court on 12th October, the condition set by the Court for the team's continuance in the IPL, effectively meaning the end of the road for the beleaguered team.
The DCHL, however, approached the same day and secured an order that status quo be maintained. The arbitrator's order had prevented BCCI from going ahead with the termination.
Aggrieved, the Cricket Board then moved the Bombay High Court, which stayed the arbitrator's order on 13th October, paving the way for the BCCI to go ahead with the termination of the franchise and invite bids for a new team.




5 years ago

can't be re-charged !

Fixed deposits – Nationalised banks offer better interest rates than private banks

Interest rates on fixed deposits have been dropping for over a month. Where should you park your money? Nationalised banks are better options compared with private banks 

You may be searching for higher interest rates to lock your savings for one year or more. Over the last one month, long-term fixed deposits (FD) rates have been on a decline. It started with State Bank of India (SBI) slashing the rates, which now stands at 8.5% p.a. for any FD term of one to 10 years. The long-term FD rates of SBI are less competitive when compared to many other nationalised banks, which still give 9.25%-9.35% p.a.
Bigger private sector lenders like ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank and Axis Bank also moved quickly to adjust their rates, which are usually 0.25% to 0.5% higher than SBI rates. The maximum rates with ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank are 8.75% p.a.; while Axis Bank offers 9% p.a. It means nationalised banks are still a better bet for higher interest rates when compared to big private banks. 
After a delay, smaller private players like Kotak Mahindra Bank, YES Bank, Karur Vysya Bank and IndusInd bank lowered their rates to 9%-9.25% p.a. Till 4th October, cooperative bank like Saraswat Bank was offering 10% simple interest paid quarterly, which is now reduced to 9.25%. While locking at 10% is not possible today from well known banks, nationalised banks can get you 9.3% to 9.35% interest for a FD of one to two years tenure, which is a good option.
Few cooperative banks are offering 9.75% to 10.25% interest rate on FDs today. But safety of your funds should have higher priority than earning 0.5% to 1% more interest. Moneylife foundation highlights this point in ‘How to be safe with your money’ seminars.
Moreover, smaller cooperative banks can charge higher penalties for premature withdrawal and therefore liquidity of the FD before maturity can be a concern. For example, Thane Janata Sahakari Bank does not allow premature withdrawal, which is a big drawback and risk for saver.
Ensure that your FD penalty clause for premature withdrawal is not worse than the industry standard which is: “If the depositor opts for premature closure, 1% penal interest shall be charged on the rate applicable for which the deposit remained with the bank.” 
Any wording better than this for long-term FD of one year or more will be to the advantage of the saver. Bank of Maharashtra charges no penalty for FD up to one year term. SBI charges 0.5% penalty for FDs of one year or more duration that is less than the rate for which deposit remained with the bank.
Read this space regularly for more articles on RD, debit cards, Know-Your-Customer (KYC) requirements, lockers, RTGS, NEFT, online access and transfers, etc.
You may also want to read –


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)