Regulations
SEBI confirms interim ban order on entities connected with Dhyana Finstock
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) on Wednesday confirmed its interim ban order on 10 persons and one corporate connected with Dhyana Finstock Ltd from dealing in the securities market for evading tax using the preferential allotment and stock market mechanism.
 
The markets regulator confirmed its interim order issued on June 1, 2016 restraining the 11 entitites from dealing in the securities market.
 
The Sebi confirmed its interim order after it considered whether its June 1, 2016 order issued against the 11 entities/notices need to be confirmed, vacated or modified during the pendency of the investigation in the matter.
 
According to it, the modus operandi employed by Dhyana, its directors/promoters, preferential allottees and Dhyana group was to make a facade of preferential allotment.
 
After the expiry of the lock-in period, it purchased shares from the preferential allottees at artificially increased prices.
 
"In the whole process, entities of the Dhyana Group provided a hugely profitable exit to the preferential allottees," Sebi said.
 
According to SEBI, the beneficiaries made a collective profit of Rs 107.43 crore on a collective investment of Rs 5.22 crore in a period of 20 months and claimed exemption from long term capital gains tax.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

User

92% of villages 'electrified' have houses without power
As many as 78 per cent of the 18,452 inhabitable villages the government set out to provide with power have been "electrified". However, 92 per cent of the 10,072 newly-electrified villages include homes which do not have electricity.
 
On August 22, 2016, the government issued an update to say that 28 villages were "electrified" the previous week (15-21 August), as part of the ongoing mission to electrify the remaining 18,452 un-electrified villages in India.
 
Last week, the government missed the quota, as an average of 252 villages must be electrified per week, 36 per day, in order to reach the newly pushed-forward completion target of March 2017. The target set out by Prime Minister Narendra Modi was 1,000 days; the live updated government website says the deadline is March 2017, just over 200 days away.
 
As many as 34 villages have been electrified per day, on average, over the past four weeks, so the project is on track to reach its goal on time, just.
 
The electrification process is now being closely monitored by the Gram Vidyut Abhiyanta (GVA), or the Village Electrification Engineer; there are monthly targets to be reached, and a 12-stage electrification process has been established.
 
All 12 stages must be completed across 18,452 villages to make the scheme a success -- a total of 221,424 milestones. Of these, 57 per cent or 126,116 have been achieved, according to data on the government website.
 
Up to 32 per cent of the milestones achieved are in the last four stages of the 12-stage electrification process; 35 per cent are in only the first four stages. Just eight per cent of electrification has reached the final stage, "handing over villages", at which point the village is said to be electrified.
 
However, to say these villages will be "electrified" is not to say all their residents will enjoy electricity, FactChecker reported in 2015. Only 10 per cent of homes in a village are required to actually have electricity for a village to be declared "electrified" by the Ministry of Power.
 
Of those homes truly electrified, quality of power is often an issue. Three-quarters of electrified homes in rural Uttar Pradesh received electricity less than 12 hours a day, IndiaSpend reported in October 2015.
 
The Ministry of Power's August 22 update said that the government has resolved to go on "mission mode" to complete electrification "in view of the Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi's address to nation, on Independence Day". During this address, the PM cited Nagla Fatela, a village in Uttar Pradesh, as electrified, but it was since reported that the residents of the village did not have electric power, unless by illegal means.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

User

COMMENTS

shadi katyal

3 months ago


why are we defending the center? Should it not be center policy to see that proper electicfication is done of the village or just shout on roof tops how much we have electrifiede the village,
The test is in the taste of the pudding and not just claiming such emmpty ahcievments

Advance India

3 months ago

To blame Center Government for this is not right, as the Center Government is doing a great job towards the electrification of villages, In less than two years of the time the Center Government already electrified more than 10,000 villages out of 18,452. It’s the time for States Governments to ensure benefits reach the ground.

shadi katyal

3 months ago


what is the defination of village electrification if there are no customers. Is this what UPA not did in the past by jusst one bulb in the village or taking electric posts but no power?
Why is Govt not using the solar power and thus avoid all kinds of transmission lines and loss of power during runningpower.
Today national net work looses 35% of power during transmission as [pwer ;ines and old and worn out. and is anythiong being done about it

Whatsoever a Man Soweth, that Shall He Reap
Once a reader queried whether this column carried ‘imagined’ instances. We replied that the law is far stranger than fiction and we had no need to invent stories. Now comes a judgement that puts many of our columns into one, single, perspective. It’s a merging of case studies and fortifies the maxim, ‘If there is a malady, there must be a remedy’.
 
A landlord is responsible for his property; the polluter pays; the wild beast theory and many others have been discussed before. This column revisits them.
 
Folks think that Switzerland is a whistle-clean country; the reason is that the Swiss collect all their junk in designated places. The authorities pay for the permission. “If you allow me to sweep my dirt under your carpet, I’ll compensate you.” Cash for trash. This went on for 10 years on a particular site, and the owner collected his dues. One day, he died.
 
His heirs inherited the pile of whatever it was. The three of them then sold it to someone else. The new proprietor now owned the stuff. And with it, a mountain of troubles. After 30 years of dumping, a routine site assessment found sub-soil leaching, and a pollution threat loomed. The latest owner asked for a competent authority ruling, claiming that it was not his fault and he must not be asked to pay.
 
Now, you be the judge
 
How would you decide this?
 
The Polluter pays. This is a now globally accepted axiom. In the current case, whom would you consider the polluter? The dumper or the one who permitted it? The principle says that all those responsible need to pay. One contracted, the other received. Which cat should be belled? One or both? The authorities gave a political solution: 75% by the dumper and the rest to be shared by the three heirs. The trio balked.
 
We are not the current owners, they said. Our benefactor was unaware of the pollution, and even if he were, liability is non-transferable. Why not charge the current owner who should not buy property with his eyes wide shut, they questioned. On the other hand, the authorities claimed that since covenants run with the land, so do liabilities; the heirs had not forsaken the bequest. They were not charged as polluters themselves; only clean-up costs were levied.
 
The matter went to the Supreme Court. There, various permutations and combinations were discussed. The underlying theme was about knowledge of the fact. Also, when and where this knowledge became known and to whom was this known. Who were the active participants in the act? Did they know of the polluting effects of the landfill? Was the trio aware of the pollution, when accepting the bequest?
 
Here, we need to discuss some points in law. One is that the owner of the property is responsible for such acts that damage others. The landlord is responsible, knowledgeable or otherwise. Next is the doctrine of election, which had serious repercussions on the judgement. Election is the choice of opting out. One is not bound to accept an inheritance and can, if one so chooses, not partake of the bequest. After all, the inheritance could be a kiss of death. It could be loaded with liabilities and should, therefore, be refused.
 
In the instant case, the trio was unaware of pollution at the time of claiming the property. If they had known of the strings attached, the bequest could have been refused. Again, the new buyer, the present owner, was also innocent, thanks to lack of knowledge. In fact, he had purchased the plot after it showed no signs of being a landfill. 
 
With both, the buyer and the seller displaying clean hands, on whom did the Supreme Court lay the 25% burden? While retaining the 75% costs on the dumper, it transferred the remaining costs on the community of citizens. Smart move.
 
Spread it thin so no one will complain. 

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)