Regulations
SEBI bars Kolkata-based I-Core from raising public funds

Kolkata based I-Core E-Services had allegedly collected Rs45.74 crore from investors during 2009-2010

 

Market regulator Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has ordered Kolkata based I-Core E-Services (ICES) and its promoters not to raise funds through issuance of securities besides restricting it from the capital markets.
 
The SEBI, in its interim order, said: "It is alleged that the company was engaged in fund mobilising activity through issue of equity shares to more than 49 persons without complying with the various provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and SEBI DIP Guidelines, 2000."
 
The firm is already under the scanner from Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).
 
The company had allegedly collected funds to the tune of Rs45.74 crore during 2009-2010.
 
The interim order passed by SEBI also prevented the company from "issuing prospectus or any offer document or issue advertisement for soliciting money from the public for the issue of securities".
 
In July last year, the SEBI had barred ICES from mobilising money by issuing securities and had also restricted the firm and its directors from the capital market till further directions were issued.
 

User

Don't insist on Aadhaar for social benefits: Supreme Court

The Bench reiterated it was incumbent upon the central government to ensure that the states complied with the Supreme Court's order of not making Aadhaar mandatory for availing social benefits under various schemes

 

The Supreme Court has directed the central and state governments not to insist on possessing Aadhaar for availing benefits under the various social security schemes as it reiterated an order it passed in September 2013.
 
A bench of Justice J Chelameswar, Justice SA Bobde and Justice C Nagappan, without going into concrete examples, said: "In certain quarters, Aadhaar are being insisted on by various authorities."
 
The apex court by its 23 September 2013 order, had said "no person should suffer for not getting the Aadhaar in spite of the fact that some authorities had issued a circular making it mandatory and when any person applies to get the Aadhaar voluntarily, it may be checked whether that person is entitled for it under the law and it should not be given to any illegal immigrant."
 
The Court reiterated its order after senior counsel Gopal Subramanium drew the attention of the court towards the Delhi government directive insisting on an Aadhaar for the registration of marriages. Subramanium had appeared for one of the petitioners.
 
The court did not appear appreciative when Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar submitted that some states were not abiding by the court order.
 
"It is your duty to ensure our orders are followed. You can't say states are not following our order," the Bench told him, stressing it was incumbent upon the central government to ensure that the states complied with the apex court's order.
 
Directing the next hearing of the matter in the second week of July and noting the presence of the centre and all the states, the court said: "We expect all to scrupulously adhere to our order dated 23 Sept 2013."
 
The court's order came as it took up the batch of petitions challenging the Aadhaar card which were last heard by it on April 28, 2014.
 
Karnataka High Court's former judge K S Puttaswamy had moved the court in 2012 contending that the entire Aadhaar scheme was unconstitutional as the biometric data collected under it was an incursion and transgression of individual privacy.
 

User

COMMENTS

Davidson D

2 years ago

With this decision of Hon.ble Supreme Court, would it still be necessary for booking a refill of LPG cylinder. Can the consumer not take a stand that he should be charged the cost without the subsidy as Aadhar is not mandatory and transfer of subsidy in that scenario does not arise.

Davidson D

2 years ago

With this decision of Hon.ble Supreme Court, would it still be necessary for booking a refill of LPG cylinder. Can the consumer not take a stand that he should be charged the cost without the subsidy as Aadhar is not mandatory and transfer of subsidy in that scenario does not arise.

Mr Jitendra

2 years ago

I think the menace of Aadhaar has spread too wide and too deep to counsel any agency. Even schools right in cities in March 2015 ask Aadhaar card as proof of address for school admissions. Several websites have still not removed Aadhaar reference. If you walk into passport office with all address proofs, marksheets, certificates, the officer there still wants your Aadhaar because RPOs have their prerogative to ask for "more or additional documents to satisfy themselves". In practice a one year valid passport itself is enough for REISSUE of passport as the same acts as Proof of Identity, Proof of Address and Date of Birth. yet they want more documents. Harassment to the citizenry is deep rooted in bureaucracy.

California Auditing Insurance Company That Took Away Home Health Aide
A top labor official in California challenges our characterization of changes to the state's workers' comp system. His department will audit a case spotlighted by us
 
Updated (Mar. 16, 2015): This story was updated to include statements from the California labor department’s Division of Workers’ Compensation and the California Workers’ Compensation Institute. 
 
California’s labor department says it will conduct an audit of how Travelers Insurance handled the case of paralyzed worker Joel Ramirez, who was left to fend for himself for months after the company withdrew his 24-hour home health care.
 
Ramirez was featured in a ProPublica/NPR investigation of state changes in workers’ compensation laws nationwide. Since 2003, more than 30 states have cut benefits, created hurdles to getting medical care, or made it more difficult for injured workers to qualify.
The agency said the audit was prompted by our investigation.
 
The 48-year-old former warehouse manager was hurt in 2009, when a 900-pound crate that had been unsafely stacked at his employer’s Southern California warehouse fell on him. Travelers initially provided him with a home health aide to help him transfer from his wheelchair and with his personal care, as the accident left him incontinent. But the insurer terminated the care after the passage of a new law in 2012 that allowed insurers to subject even old cases to a new, more stringent medical review process.
 
David Lanier, secretary of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, challenged ProPublica and NPR’s description of the new law and said it did not allow insurers to reopen settled cases and renege on previously approved treatment plans. (See full statement.)
 
Travelers, he said, failed to follow the mandated process and unilaterally terminated Ramirez’s home health care.
 
 
Courtesy: ProPublica.org
 

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

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)