Nifty, Sensex may see an upmove: Weekly Market Report

A close above 5,665 on the Nifty on Monday may see the upmove gaining strength, possibly to 5,710

The market gained around a percent mainly on international support as global indicators point to a gradual improvement in the economies across the world. However, the domestic gains were capped towards the end of the week as the first two days of the Winter Session of Parliament was a washout due to opposition to FDI in multi-brand retail and the issue of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes promotions. Parliament proceeding and the expiry of the November F&O contract will keep the market volatile next week.
The Sensex closed the week at 18,507, up 197 points (1.08%) and the Nifty finished 53 points (0.94%) higher at 5,627. A strong close above 5,665 may bring more momentum to the uptrend and may see the index reach to the level of 5,710. However, Friday’s low continues to be the crucial level to watch.
The market settled flat with a mixed bias on Monday after remaining listless for a major part of the session. Selling pressure in realty, oil & gas and metal stocks saw the benchmarks paring their gains and ending flat on Tuesday. Hopes of the government’s reforms being approved by Parliament in the Winter Session pushed the market higher on Wednesday.
Opposition to the government’s reforms marred Parliament proceedings on Thursday resulting in the benchmarks closing flat. The market settled flat to negative on Friday as the second day of the Winter Session also proved to be a washout.
BSE Fast Moving Consumer Goods (up 3%) and BSE Auto (up 2%) were the key sectoral gainers while BSE PSU and BSE Power (down 1% each) were the main losers.
Among Sensex stocks, Mahindra & Mahindra (up 7%), ITC, HDFC Bank, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Maruti Suzuki (up 4% each) were the chief gainers. NTPC (down 4%), BHEL, GAIL India, ONGC and Tata Motors (down 2% each) settled at the bottom of the index.
The key Nifty toppers were M&M (up 7%), HCL Technologies (up 5%), ITC, HDFC Bank and Sun Pharma (up 4% each). The major losers on the index in the week were Ranbaxy Laboratories (down 5%), NTPC (down 4%), Lupin, ONGC (down 3% each) and BHEL (down 2%).
Kick-starting the disinvestment process of this year, the government on Friday sold 5.58% stake in Hindustan Copper for about Rs808 crore at an average price of Rs156.56 apiece, with bulk of the bids coming from LIC and PSU banks. 
Encouraged by the response to the first stake sale in the current financial year, finance minister P Chidambaram expressed the hope that government would able to garner the targeted Rs30,000 crore in 2012-13 through disinvestment.
The government on Thursday cleared the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy that will bring 348 essential drugs under price control, leading to reduction in prices. The pricing now would be based on simple average of rates of all brands which have more than 1% market share. While drug companies may declare that it will impact their profit margins for some drugs, they must have sighed a relief that cost-based model is scrapped. MBP will legitimise overpricing of life-saving drugs.
Reports of a possible agreement with the Congress on the US budget and positive economic data from across the world helped the US markets close the week at their best since June. Meanwhile, Greece said the International Monetary Fund had made some concessions in the debt-cutting target for the country, suggesting lenders were closer to a deal for a vital aid tranche to be paid.


Why is the AP government shielding Dharmana Rao, asks EAS Sarma

EAS Sarma, former secretary of the GoI, has questioned the AP government's decision to reject a CBI plea for prosecution of Dharmana Rao, the minister who is accused and charge-sheeted in the Vanpic Port land scam

The Andhra Pradesh (AP) government has rejected a plea from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for prosecution of AP roads and buildings minister Dharmana Prasada Rao, who has been named as an accused and charge-sheeted in the Vanpic Port land scandal. Following this decision, EAS Sarma, former secretary of the Government of India (GoI), wrote a letter to AP governor ESL Narasimhan requesting him not the accept the recommendation of the state government keeping in mind the public interest.
Mr Sarma, in his letter, said, there is evidence of malfeasance in the irregular and improper land deals in the Vanpic case. “Already, one state minister and several officers are facing the heat of CBI prosecution in Vanpic, Emaar MGF and other cases. There cannot be one set of norms for them and another set for Dharmana Prasada Rao. It will amount to discrimination and an infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution,” he said.
Dharmana submitted his resignation from the minister’s post on ‘moral grounds’ on 14th August, a day after he was charge-sheeted by the CBI in the Vanpic Port land scam. AP chief minister N Kiran Kumar Reddy, however, did not take any decision on the minister’s resignation and kept it pending for more than three months now.
Meanwhile, according to PTI sources, health minister DL Ravindra Reddy objected to the issue being raised in the Cabinet meet. “Granting or rejecting permission (for prosecution) is an issue to be decided by the chief minister. Why should it be placed in the Cabinet?” Ravindra Reddy questioned and said he was opposing the Cabinet resolution.
Panchayat raj minister K Jana Reddy said there was no need for a discussion on the issue in the Cabinet. “As ministers, we will accept your decision,” he told the chief minister, reports PTI.
Here are the points raised by the former secretary in his letter written to the AP Governor, against the denial of permission for CBI prosecution by AP government...
1. In Vineet Narain & Others Vs Union of India, the Supreme Court pronounced a landmark order on 18 December 1997 laying down norms to be followed by the government in sanctioning permission to the CBI and other agencies to prosecute senior public functionaries. I have extracted below an important portion of the order for your ready reference.
“Every person accused of committing the same offences is to be dealt with in the same manner in accordance with law, which is equal in its application to everyone. The Single Directive is applicable only to certain persons above the specified level who are described as ‘decision making officers’. The question is whether any distinction can be made for them for the purpose of investigation of an offence of which they are accused. Obviously, where the accusation of corruption is based on direct evidence and it does not require any inference to be drawn depend on the decision making process, there is no rational basic to classify them differently. In other words, if the accusation be of bribery which is supported by direct evidence of acceptance of illegal gratification by them, including strap cases, it is obvious that no other factor is relevant and the level or status of the offender is irrelevant”.
The essence of the above order is that there can be no double standards on the part of the government in sanctioning permission for prosecution in such cases. Already, one state minister and several officers are facing the heat of CBI prosecution in Vanpic, Emaar MGF and other cases. There cannot be one set of norms for them and another set for Dharmana Prasada Rao. It will amount to discrimination and an infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. In another case relating to illegal occupation of government lands on the basis of fabricated documents, a senior revenue minister at that time and several senior officers had benefited the culprits in return for posh apartments at nominal prices, about which I had made a reference in my letters 1st to 3rd and 5th cited. The state is yet to grant me permission under the Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute the culprits. It clearly shows how the state is shielding the corrupt deliberately. In a way, by shielding them, they have become abettors in the criminal offences committed by the concerned public servants. Clearly, the state cabinet's recommendation in this case is coloured and prejudiced, not based on any judicious consideration.
3. In Madhya Pradesh, in a similar case of a corruption case involving a senior public functionary, the state cabinet recommended to the governor to reject permission to the investigating agency to prosecute the concerned. The governor, however, felt that public interest was involved and rejected the cabinet's recommendation. His decision was upheld by the apex court. This case will be of relevance to the case of Dharmana Prasada Rao. You may like to get the details of this.
4. As the constitutional head in the state, under article 159, the governor is committed to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law” and “devote (himself/herself) to the service and well-being of the people of the state”. In consonance with this oath, it will be appropriate for you to uphold the public interest by sanctioning prosecution by the CBI. 
5. In the instant case of Vanpic, lands tilled by D-Patta assignees (who were all marginal farmers) were illegally given away to rich individuals. Compensation due to them was allowed to be misappropriated by him as a result of the deliberate acts of the culprits in this case. Government lands were transferred to an industrialist in violation of the Doctrine of Public Trust. Water bodies have been damaged in violation of the environmental norms laid down by the apex court. There cannot be a more appropriate case than this for bringing the culprits to book.
Mr Sarma, requested governor Narasimhan to reject the recommendation of the state government and allow prosecution of Dharmana Rao by the CBI, in public interest.



Vaibhav Dhoka

5 years ago

Its EYEOPENER for all public,this is how congress government has bankrupted nation.This is tip of ICEBERG.Unless we increase literacy level of common public this is bound to continue in some states regularly.Lets see what Governor of AP takes view on this representation.

RTI Judgement Series: You can get answers within 48 hours if it is a question of life or liberty

In an order issued on 20 August 2010, the CIC asked a public authority to pay a compensation of Rs50,000 to a patient suffering from serious illness for not providing information within 48 hours under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. This is the first in a series of important judgements given by Shailesh Gandhi, former CIC that can be used in an RTI application


The public information officer (PIO) is bound to furnish information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, within 48 hours if it concerns life or liberty of a person. This was one of the most important decisions given by Shailesh Gandhi, former Central Information Commissioner (CIC).


“The life or liberty provision can be applied only in cases where there is an imminent danger to the life or liberty of a person and the non-supply of the information may either lead to death or grievous injury to the concerned person,” the CIC said in his order in the Puran Chand Vs Directorate of Health Services (DHS), Government of NCT of Delhi case.


Puran Chand, who belongs to the below poverty line (BPL) category, was suffering from compression of spine and needed urgent surgery. He filed an RTI under Section 7(1) after the India Spinal Injury Centre (ISIC) denied him freeship facility that he was entitled to. The ISIC gave him an estimate of Rs1.75 lakh for the operation.


The government has allotted land to certain private hospitals at nominal rates on the condition that they will provide 10% of the beds to patients from the economically weaker section. Puran Chand claimed that he should be given treatment free of cost as he was a BPL card holder. However, the hospital authorities refused to give him admission for free treatment. He said he could not afford to pay Rs1.75 lakh and then on 31 August 2009, filed an application under the RTI seeking information within 48 hours as the matter was involved with his life.


However, the PIO claimed that he received the application only on 2 September 2009 and sought assistance from the Nursing Home Cell. Dr JN Mohanty, MS, Nursing Home Cell received the RTI application on 9 September 2009. He obtained the information from ISIC and sent it on 11 September 2009 to the PIO. The PIO, in turn, sent the information to Puran Chand on 16 September 2009. 


In the meantime, Puran Chand needed to undergo the surgery at the earliest. So, he borrowed money from his relatives and friends and got himself admitted in Ganga Ram Hospital. He was operated on 10 September 2009.


After verifying the facts, the Commission, in its order in August 2010, said it appears that the medical condition of the Complainant (Puran Chand) was grave and required immediate medical attention. “The compression in the spinal cord was serious in nature and if allowed to deteriorate, could have led to the complainant going in a coma. An analysis of the queries in the RTI application reveal that the replies thereto would have enabled the complainant to know whether he would be provided the urgent medical attention at ISIC or would he have to approach some other hospital. The fact that within four days of filing the RTI application, the complainant was forced to approach another hospital for treatment is reflective of the serious nature of his disease. Given the urgent need for medical attention, the Commission finds that the information sought for in the RTI Application does concern the life of the complainant and therefore information should have been provided within 48 hours of receipt of the RTI Application,” the Commission said.


“Further, the complainant belongs to the BPL category and irreparable loss, both physically and financially, was incurred by him due to the careless and insensitive attitude of the PIO. The instant case represents the failure of the delivery system to the poor. The Commission feels that unless all officers and systems can respond in a time bound manner, governance cannot deliver to those who need it the most,” the order said.


Due to the failure of the PIO to provide information sought under Section 7(1) within 48 hours, the Commission asked him to pay a compensation of Rs50,000 to Puran Chand and also provide complete information.




Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001628/9090 Date 20 August 2010

( )

Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001628


Complainant                 :  Mr. Pooran Chand

                                              S/o of Shri Narayan Chand,

                                              D-44, West Vinod Nagar,

                                              New Delhi-110092


Respondent                   :   Dr. G. Kausalya

                                             Public Information Officer & Chief Medical Officer 

                                              Directorate of Health Services

                                              Govt. of NCT of Delhi,

                                              F-17, Karkardooma, New Delhi. 




nagesh kini

5 years ago

The simplest route in RTI is to seek inspection under Sec.4 wherein one can demand the records and papers pay for and collect whatever is relevant to the issue.
At least at MCGM it is welcomed by the PIOs because it does away with the rigours of collating the information, making out a file note, then 'putting up' to the official all within the time limit of 30 days. They will stamp the copies
'Given under RTI'.
The Applicant has to be clear as to what s/he seeks.

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)