The government has decided to re-allocate three coal blocks—Chatti-Bariatu, Kerandari and Chatti-Bariatu (South)—to NTPC but all the necessary clearances are not in place
New Delhi: The power ministry is in constant touch with coal ministry to speed up the re-allocation of three mines to NTPC, which would boost the power producer’s valuation ahead of its Rs12,000 crore disinvestment this fiscal, reports PTI.
The government has decided to re-allocate three coal blocks—Chatti-Bariatu, Kerandari and Chatti-Bariatu (South)—to NTPC but all the necessary clearances are not in place.
“We are in constant talks with the coal ministry to speed up the re-allocation of coal mines to NTPC,” power secretary P Uma Shankar told PTI.
He did not share specific details.
Re-allocation of the coal blocks would boost the overall market valuation of NTPC, which is grappling with fuel shortages. Better share prices, during disinvestment, would in turn help in fetching higher returns for the government, which is hard-pressed for resources.
“The re-allocation (of coal mines) will improve NTPC’s valuation,” Shankar said.
The three blocks were taken back from NTPC by the coal ministry citing long delays in developing them.
Last month, a power ministry official had said that preparations for NTPC share sale would start only when the three coal blocks are re-allocated.
Power minister Jyotiraditya Scindia, last month, had said the coal blocks would be re-allocated at the earliest.
In November 2012, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs had approved NTPC stake sale.
The country's largest power producer NTPC became public with its initial public offering hitting the market in 2004.
Thereafter in 2009, the government further diluted its stake in the company through a Follow-on Public Offer (FPO).
Government holds 84.50% in NTPC, a ‘Maharatna’ company, which has a capacity of 39,674 MW—roughly one-fifth of country's current installed generation capacity.
So far this fiscal, the government has mopped up over Rs6,900 crore through disinvestments in public sector companies.
It has set a target of raising Rs30,000 crore in the financial year ending March 2013.
The decline in industrial output, as measured by the Index of Industrial Production may prompt the Reserve Bank to consider rate cut in its quarterly review on 29th January to boost growth
New Delhi: Dashing hopes of a rebound, the industrial output contracted to a four-month low of -0.1% in November due to poor performance of manufacturing and mining sectors and decline in production of capital goods, reports PTI.
The industrial output, as measured by the Index of Industrial Production (IIP) dipped from a robust 8.3% in October. The decline may prompt the Reserve Bank to consider rate cut in its quarterly review on 29th January to boost growth.
The industrial output had grown by 6% in November 2011. Meanwhile, in July 2012 it showed a contraction of 0.1%.
Factory output growth was 1% in April-November period this fiscal, down from 3.8% in the same period in 2011-12, according to official data released.
Meanwhile, the growth in the industrial production during October last year was revised upward to 8.3%, from earlier provisional estimates of 8.2% released last month—highest in previous 16 months.
The manufacturing sector, which constitutes over 75% of the index, grew by meagre 0.3% in November in 2012, as against a 6.6% in 2011.
The output of the key sector remained low at 1% in April-November last year as against 4.2% growth in the same period in 2011.
The mining output in November contracted by 5.5% compared to a decline in production by 3.5% in same month in 2011. The sector’s production in April-November declined by 1.5% against a contraction of 2.4% in the year-ago period.
Capital goods output declined by 7.7% in November, as against a contraction of 4.7% in the same month in 2011.
The output of capital goods also contracted in the April-November period by 11.1%, as against a dip in production by 0.1% in the 2011-12 period.
Power generation grew by 2.4% in November, as against 14.6% in same month in 2011. The electricity generation in the April-November period this fiscal is 4.4%, as against 9.5% in a year-ago period.
Consumer goods output growth was 1% in November as against 12.8%. In the April-November period of this fiscal, the growth in consumer goods was 3.8% as compared to 5% in the same period of 2011-12.
The growth in output of consumer durables is 1.9% in November, as compared to double digit growth of 10.4% in the same month in 2011. The growth in the output of these goods remained flat at 5.2% in April-November this fiscal.
The consumer non-durables output growth was 0.3% in November, as against a 15% in the year-ago period.
This segment grew by 2.5% in the eight month period of this fiscal, as against 4.9% in the same period of 2011-12.
The basic goods production growth was 1.7% in November, compared to 6.5% the year-ago period.
During the April-November period, this segment recorded a growth of 2.8%, compared to 6.3% in the first eight months of last fiscal.
The intermediate goods output declined by 1.1% in November as compared to a growth of 1.3% in the same month in 2011. During the April-November period this fiscal, growth in the output of these goods was 1.8% compared to a contraction of 0.6% in the eight month period a year ago.
In terms of industries, 13 out of 22 groups in the manufacturing sector have shown negative growth in November, 2012 as compared to the same month in 2011.
The industry group publishing, printing and reproduction of recorded media has shown the highest contraction of 22.1%, followed by 21.8% in office, accounting and computing machinery and 18.9% in wood, products of wood and cork, except furniture.
On the other hand, the industry group electrical machinery and apparatus has shown a positive growth of 25.1%, followed by 15.7% in luggage, handbags, saddlery, harness and footwear; tanning and dressing of leather products and 15.3% in radio, TV and communication equipment and apparatus.
The complainant informed the court that she suffered immense mental stress and agony due to the conduct of the company
Thane: Dismissing a complaint by an investor using the services of a share broking company, the Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has held that an investor cannot be treated as a consumer, as he is indulging in trading for commercial purposes, reports PTI.
One Chayya V Madane from New Panvel had enrolled herself with the India Infoline, for availing their services in trading in shares. Accordingly, she had opened a demat account and was using the services of the firm for trading.
Thane Consumer Forum president Jyoti A Mandhle and member Smita L Desai passed the order on 9th January on a complaint by Madane against India Infoline.
In her complaint, Madane said that in March 2008, she had opened a demat account with India Infoline for selling and purchase of shares.
She deposited Rs60,555 with the company and Re0.05 (paise) was to be taken as brokerage for trading. It was noticed by the complainant that instead of charging Re0.05 (paise), they charged Re 0.10 (paise) as brokerage.
On 6 June 2008 an email was sent by the complainant to the company to stop the transaction going into the account but despite that, the latter continued the trading transaction and disposed amount from her account.
On 2 August 2008, she sent a letter to the company saying that the amount Rs60,000 should be reversed back into her account with interest or else she will take legal action against them.
She submitted that as no response was given by the company, she sent a notice on 20 September 2008 to the manager of the company saying that the deposited amount in her account should be reversed into her account with interest.
The complainant informed the court that she suffered immense mental stress and agony due to the conduct of the company.
However, the trading company contested the complaint and told the court that “as the complainant is taking services from us for commercial purposes for making profit by trading in stock market, so she is not a consumer and as the complainant is not a consumer, this complaint should be dismissed with heavy cost.”
The respondent also stated that any disputes arising between the parties in respect of this agreement of any contract dealings or transactions or interpretation or construction of the agreement are subject to the arbitration procedure, as prescribed by the Exchange provisions, so the complainant has no right to seek any relief for want of jurisdictions.
They also said that the object behind opening the account was commercial and in view of the terms in Section 2(1)d of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, parties who avail services are excluded from the definition of the consumer and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer and thus, her complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act.
In its order, the Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held that, “The complainant has not made out any case under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to the effect that such trading is for her own employment and earning her livelihood, therefore she being not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, the dispute is not a consumer dispute.”
“From the facts of the present case and the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the complainant has availed services for commercial purposes and therefore the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act,” the form added.