SC rejects Pyramid Saimira's plea to lift trading ban

The apex court dismissed the company’s plea for lifting the 7-year ban from accessing the market, which was imposed by SEBI last November following irregularities in the company's IPO in 2006

The Supreme Court (SC) today dismissed a petition by Madras-based entertainment company, Pyramid Saimira, challenging a seven-year trading ban imposed on it by market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), reports PTI.

The bench, headed by chief justice S H Kapadia, dismissed the petition filed by the company, PS Theatre, requesting the court to lift the seven-year ban from accessing the market, which was imposed by SEBI last November following irregularities in the company's initial public offering (IPO) in 2006.

"We do not want such firms to continue... in the matter of fraud, we do not do anything," the bench said while declining the company's plea.

The company had challenged the order of the securities appellate tribunal, which had on 10 November, 2009, upheld the SEBI order.

(Read more about Pyramid Saimira... , and



padmanabhan s

6 years ago

What about the small investors who had
invested in the PSTL and is there any
way out for those existing investors
from the promoters' clutches? Let ROC/SEBI/GOI do something to alleviate
sufferings whose investments were locked in the company and dwindling
day after day.

After mutual funds and ULIPs, will NPS get a makeover?

The pension regulator has suddenly initiated a consultation process with market participants for the formation of new administrative guidelines for the New Pension Scheme. Does it set the stage for a makeover of the NPS?

After the mutual fund and insurance regulators have done their bit for investors, is it now time for the pension regulator to leave its mark? The Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) which got a new chairman in Yogesh Agarwal (former chairman of IDBI), on 7th June, has invited comments from various market participants and the public at large on the first draft of administrative guidelines proposed to be issued for the New Pension Scheme (NPS). These include guidelines for the Central Recordkeeping Agency, Custodian and Depository Participant, fees and charges, New Pension System Trust, Points of Presence and the Subscribers Education and Protection Fund. The guidelines would be further reviewed in light of the comments received and any other developments.

Commenting on the purpose for bringing out new guidelines, a PFRDA official said, "We want to know what we have missed out in the past and enhance the scope of the scheme in terms of regulation. We wish to provide sufficient opportunity to the public to participate in this process. We expect to benefit from the comments received from various market participants in this regard. Once this is completed, it will offer guidance to the participants."

Rani Nair, executive director of PFRDA said, "We have invited comments to see whether there is anything which has not been covered yet. As we are moving on, we are bringing various value-plus services for our customers. This is a part of such services. We are putting in place some legally enforceable guidelines for various market intermediaries to ensure that customers are protected and not misled. Customers will be made aware of the responsibilities of different intermediaries, once the guidelines are in place." Asked whether any major policy shifts are being planned, she said that the basic architecture for the NPS would remain the same.

NPS allows one to save regularly in a scheme until the age of 60. The scheme mixes investment in safe debt and equity stocks (of Sensex and Nifty) in different proportions. However, NPS has so far received a very poor response from the general public. There is nobody to explain and sell the scheme, since there is no commission involved in selling it.

The PFRDA may not be willing to admit it, but some sweeping changes seem to be on the cards for the nascent pension scheme. Pension fund managers (PFMs) have sought major changes in the fee structure. According to a media report, in a recent meeting with the PFRDA chairman, the PFMs complained that the low management fees (0.0009% of assets under management) are not healthy for the system. It is another matter that the PFMs themselves bid for these prices and are now crying wolf.

The new chairman seems willing to look at the NPS afresh. He is on a drive to collect feedback from the participants so as to make NPS more popular. After mutual funds and Unit-linked Insurance Plans, now NPS may undergo significant change. Only, it will be in the opposite direction. While the stock market regulator has cut down on upfront commissions as incentive for mutual funds and the insurance regulator has made ULIPs cheaper by reducing incentives, PFRDA would want to do the opposite - add a bit of incentive to make NPS work.



Abhishek Ratan

6 years ago

After the Margins cut on the Mutual funds and Ulips the market participants will definetly look into the NPS only when they get any of the benefit out of it. As a responsible advisor to the Clients it is the Responsibility of the Advisors to Look into the Portfolio of the Clients and Distributes his Investment accordingly.NPS is a major part of the Portfolio Investment but due to lack of any incentive advisors generally do not reccomend to their clients. Now as the Mutual fund and Insurance Companies have shown their cards ,it is the right time for the NPS to enter the market with a bang through the market participants by offering them at least some lucrative offers.also the PFMs shouls be remunerated appropriately to keep their morals high.

I totally agree with the norms if some monetary gains will be distruibuted to market participants then definetly pension funds will rock!!!!!


6 years ago

The scheme in its entirety including costs, benefits and other features needs to be made available to the target client in a simple manner. Only then will NPS succeed. Incentivising it will only lead to a vicious circle faced by the mutual fund and insurance industry.

nitin parikh

6 years ago

Its plesure that pension fund is their alon entities. how ever its slowly but in future and specially new genration effectively use the scheme

Keshav B Bhat

6 years ago

Dear all,
The reality is how ever the product may be (good or Bad), it requires to be marketed to reach and get acceptance by the enduser.
Hope the people in PFRDA, SEBI realise this insted of going for a chindi saving( sorry for the mumbai local word) in the name of giving better returns to the clients.
If the fund has to give good return the fund should get enough inflow of funds and it requires maketing and marketing can not be done by sitting in luxurious offices, it requires hardworking and devoted people or intermediatories and nobody will become intermidiatories unless the are sufficiently compansated for their work. there are good no of higfhly educated people who think paying 0.5% commission is good enough to the intermediatories in MF and they themselves shold be paid a hefty advisory fee because they sit in A/C offices and use computors and use latest software to produce financial planing without taking any responsibility of anything.
The actual facts can be seen by the current state of MF industry.
The earliest they open their eyes the Better.
Keshav B Bhat


6 years ago

This article clearly proves my earlier stand stated many times earlier that our Govt is greedy of peoples money by all hooks and crooks-firstly they tried to curtail growth of MF by all crooked means which had become most popular in shortest span-then they took ULIPs-FM even put a 'carrot'' of rs 1000 per annum as extra payment(from tax payers pocket obviously)and finally DTC step-which will make EET for all options except NPS which will be EEE-
this all rubbish methods are not going to help this NPS(non performing schemes) because people will get locked their hard earned money till age of 58 years-and they would never know what could be fate of this amount-looking to stock market gambling-
just see the history in japan and hongkong-Nikke index of Japan is just between 9000 and 10000 now which was 40000 2 decades back and Hengseng is just 20000 now which was almost 38000 in 2008- and their seems no chance in future of these levels to be attained again-
our markets will perform well only for next-5-10 years-and same will be NPS-what about at age of 58 years for a person contributing from age of 30 or 40 years of age?
god save this country from corrupt politicians who have become ''vampires''of blood and flesh of common men-

Doctors are not agreeing with insurance companies, IRDA remains silent

Patients who were hoping to see the deadlock between hospitals and insurers along with TPAs be resolved will have to wait longer, as medical consultants and hospitals alike are not agreeing with their terms

Patients who were hoping that the war between insurance companies, hospitals and Third Party Administrators (TPAs) would end soon are in for disappointment, especially if they have cashless insurance. While patients suffer, the insurance regulator has remained silent.

Meanwhile, medical consultants and smaller hospitals that were also targeted by insurance companies to reduce costs are unwilling to do so. They charge TPAs and insurers of delaying payments. Rajeev Walwakar, president - Association of Medical Consultants (AMC) said, “They (insurance companies) have said that they will not discuss charges with us. So, even we have decided not to be a part of their meetings as they don’t want to listen to us.”

Medical consultants who have signed agreements with insurers, assuring them of payment within 30 days, say that they don't receive their money for two to three months and sometimes not at all. Hospitals also complain that TPAs take 90 days to settle bills, have to be pursued for payments and often do not pay the full amount. Some hospitals claim that they charge more to patients with insurance, because of these delays.

“How can you ask us to lower charges? Consumers need to get the best possible medical facility but that doesn’t mean that healthcare providers’ payments be overlooked,” added Mr Walwakar.

“If the fixed charges are low, it would be very difficult for healthcare providers to provide quality services and treatment,” said Lalit Kapoor, a member of the AMC. Some doctors even allege that TPAs collect payments from insurers and enjoy the float, while delaying payments to hospitals and consultants. In March, around 1,500 nursing homes and doctors under the banner of the AMC decided to boycott TPAs completely. This drastic measure meant that patients in hospitals covered by these TPAs could not avail of cashless facilities, putting them under severe financial strain.

But this is just one side of the story and not entirely true. It is a fact that most hospitals hike tariffs for anyone who has insurance. There are innumerable anecdotes where patients have been able to get hospitals to reduce their charges by almost 50% by claiming they had no insurance. However, in most cases, patients covered by corporate insurance policies couldn’t care less about hospital charges. Consequently, healthcare costs have been galloping in India, especially in the major metros.

Insurance companies also dismiss claims that TPAs are the cause of delay or are enjoying a float. They point out that unnecessary tests and absurd charges by hospitals have made insurance unviable and insurance companies are forced to examine claims with a fine tooth-comb. Ironically, insurers say that although TPAs are not to be blamed, they aren't of much help either, so they are doing away with their services. “TPAs are getting slapped from both sides,” a private insurer who has done away with TPAs said.

Sanjay Datta, head of ICICI Lombard’s health insurance vertical, has been quoted as saying that the insurance companies have decided to restore cashless facilities on a case-to-case basis. It is unclear whether this applies to patients or hospitals. Also, this is no solution for consumers who are paying an insurance premium in the expectation that it will act as a safety net in their time of need. There is now an attempt to initiate a dialogue between insurance companies and other stakeholders. It is important that insurance for healthcare remains a viable business for insurers. This can only happen if hospitals agree to rein in soaring costs, cut out the practice of ordering needless tests and procedures and rework tariff systems to make them more equitable. However, the shortage of high quality medical facilities allows hospitals to call the shots. And until there is better infrastructure available, patients will be the victims of the tussle between hospitals and insurers – if the government does not step in, health insurance costs in India will soon become unaffordable without any improvement in quality of services or better facilities.



kishore sachdev

6 years ago

SEBI Chief has done away with the comissions on mutual fund investments on the pretext of protecting the end clients. There is a conflict going on between SEBI and IRDA for regulating ULIP and protecting the insured. Now when there is a very strong need of help to the people seeking health insurance nobody seems to come forward and help the consumers. So all this while there was only talk of protecting the interest of the insured, but in true terms it seems it was just flexing of muscles to show who is more powerful. WHY DOES SEBI NOT INTERVENE AND ACT BIG BROTHER TO IRDA AND FORCE IT TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PAYING HUGE PREMIUMS IN THE HOPE OF RECEIVING TIMELY MEDICAL HELP.

Kalra L K

6 years ago

Hospitals and Doctors over extreme charge the Insured patients, that is very true. Due to this the Insurers are helpless and have to release the unethical huge claims, unwillingly, to hospitals.

Patients have to suffer at both hands, hospitals as well as Insurers/TPAs.

Hospitals overcharges them and make them settle the claims before discharge, till it receives the payments from TPA, and refund them later.

Insurers also have the draconian rule that they deduct the %ge from full settled claim to the extent the patient has paid for the higher category room. This means that if patient has paid 30-50% extra for the room charges from their pocket, due to non availability of their required category room, Insurers deduct full 30-50% from their eligible claim amount. That is very draconian rule Insurers have passed. They should deduct only the extra difference charges, eg. doctor's visit charges only. But there is no effect to the charges of pathology and medicines and materials etc. But Insurers/TPA deduct the percentage from the whole claim amount.
Regulator/Govt. should immediately intervene for this technical avoidance of Insurers liability.

I request MONEYLIFE that this point should be clearly reported to Regulator IRDA and help the innocent public to get out of this injustice.

samar mahapatra

6 years ago

There is not much of a protocol difference between a high end and median hospitals.High cost billing does not guarantee better treatment/ medical cure.There are huge margins in health care delivery.All that Insurers/TPA have to ensure is timely payment.Branded hospitals do not want to give up their margin/ scanning their bills.

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)