Companies & Sectors
Shipbuilding top priority for us: Modi at Hyundai shipyard

Modi, who arrived at Ulsan from Seoul, met top officials of Hyundai Shipyard, one of the biggest ship construction companies in the world

 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on a visit to the Hyundai Heavy Industries Shipyard at Ulsan, said that shipbuilding is a "top priority" for India.
 
Modi, who arrived at Ulsan from Seoul, met top officials of Hyundai Shipyard, one of the biggest ship construction companies in the world.
 
"Shipbuilding is a top priority for us." PM @narendramodi tells Kil Seon Choi Chairman of Hyundai Heavy Industries," external affairs ministry spokesperson Vikas Swarup tweeted.
 
"And wrapping up with a site visit to one of the largest shipyards in the world. PM at HHI's Ulsan facility," he tweeted.
 
"At the forefront of maritime engineering. PM visits Hyundai Heavy Industries Headquarters in Ulsan," he said. Modi also met members of the Indian community at Hyundai Heavy Industries Shipyard.
 
On Monday, Modi invited South Korean investment in areas like ship building, including LNG tankers. Both countries are to set up a Joint Working Group on shipbuilding.
 
Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) is one of the biggest ship construction companies in the world. Its ship manufacturing facility in Ulsan, a South Korean city located on the south-eastern tip of the Korean Peninsula, is the largest shipyard in the world. 
 
The shipyard extends across two and a half miles along the coast of Mipo Bay in Ulsan and covers an area of 1,780 acres. Due to its strategic location, the shipyard can be easily accessed from the open sea. 
 
Construction of the Ulsan shipyard commenced in 1972 and it was commissioned in 1974. Meanwhile, HHI also christened two very large crude carriers (VLCC), each of 260,000DWT. 
 
Construction of the ships as well as the shipyard was carried out simultaneously. The shipyard reached a 20 million DWT production milestone in 1988 and 50 million DWT in 1997. It achieved an aggregate production mark of 100 million DWT in 2005.
 
From 1972 to 2013, HHI has delivered 2,981 vessels to 268 shipowners in 48 countries. It commands around 16 percent of the world ship manufacturing market, according to ship technology.com.
 
Ulsan shipyard has ten large-scale dry docks with nine Goliath cranes. This allows HHI to manufacture any type of ship of any size.
 
HHI has an H-Dock, again the world's first dry dock for building offshore vessels. The H-dock measures 490m long, 115m wide and 13.5m high. 
 
The deep dock has a capacity of 1m DWT. HHI also developed an automatic painting spray head for painting the bottom of ships in September 2014.
 
In the morning, Modi addressed the 6th Asian Leadership Forum and the India-ROK CEOs Forum, and also interacted with the CEOs of top South Korean companies.

User

Coal block case: Court frames charges against Rathi Steel and Power

Special Judge Bharat Parashar framed charges of cheating against RSPL and its CEO Udit Rathi

 

A special court here on Tuesday framed charges in the coal block allocation case against Delhi-based Rathi Steel and Power Ltd. (RSPL) and others.
 
Special Judge Bharat Parashar framed charges of cheating against RSPL and its CEO Udit Rathi.
 
The court also framed charges of criminal conspiracy against Udit Rathi, RSPL and its managing director Pradeep Rathi and assistant general manager Kushal Aggarwal.
 
After the accused pleaded not guilty and asked for a trial, the court fixed June 2 for further hearing.
 
"It is prima-facie clear that facts of the present case present a picture where grave suspicion arises against the accused persons that they all prima-facie conspired together to cheat the Screening Committee and thereby ministry of coal (MoC) by furnishing wrong information so as to procure allotment of a coal block," the court said in its order.
 
Thus, as regarding accused Udit Rathi, it is prima-facie clear that by signing the feedback form containing false information, he deceived and induced the Screening Committee and, thereby, MoC authorities to allocate "Kesla North Coal" Block to RSPL, the court observed.
 
"...I may also mention that a perusal of the "Memorandum of Association" and "Article of Association" of RSPL which was earlier named as Rathi Udyog Ltd. clearly shows that the company RSPL is in fact a closely held family company. Initially Rathi Udyog Ltd. was a private limited company promoted purely by Rathi family members as is evident from the "Memorandum of Association" of the company," the court said.
 
"However, later on, though it became a public limited listed company, the record of the company shows that even then it continued to be primarily controlled by Rathi family members."
 
The court noted that Pradeep Rathi, the managing director of the company, and his son Udit Rathi, chief executive officer, were present at the time of making presentation before the Screening Committee alongwith their another authorised officer Kushal Aggarwal.
 
The court said that thus prima-facie it is clear that accused Pradeep Rathi continued to remain actively involved in the entire matter of allocation of coal block alongwith the officers earlier authorised by the Board of Directors of the Company.
 
"In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the facts and circumstances of the present case raises grave suspicion against all the four accused persons namely company RSPL, Udit Rathi, Pradeep Rathi and Kushal Aggarwal warranting framing of charge against them for the offence under section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with section 420 (cheating) IPC and also charge for the substantive offence i.e. under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Udit Rathi and RSPL," the court said.
 
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has chargesheeted the company, its CEO and two officials for illegal allocation of "Kesla North Coal Block to RSPL in Chhattisgarh".
 
The CBI registered an FIR against the company and its CEO on June 19, 2013.
 

User

SEBI bars Suraksha Industries India from soliciting money from investors
Suraksha Industries India was engaged in fund mobilising activity through issue of Redeemable Preference Shares to more than 49 persons without complying with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, according to a SEBI Order
 
SEBI passed an order directing Suraksha Industries India Limited not to mobilise funds from investors. The company and its directors are prohibited from issuing prospectus or any offer document or issue advertisement for soliciting money from the public for the issue of securities. The company and its directors shall not dispose off any of the properties of the company and shall not divert any funds raised from the public, according to the SEBI Order.
 
The company was engaged in fund mobilizing activity through issue of Redeemable Preference Shares to more than 49 persons without complying with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.
 
SEBI received a complaint dated 5 September 2014 against Suraksha Industries India Limited alleging mobilisation of money through issuance of preference shares and non-payment of maturity amount thereon. The complainant also enclosed a copy of Redeemable Preference Share Certificate issued by Suraksha. SEBI immediately began to investigate the matter.
 
As the company was not forthcoming with complete information to assist SEBI in its investigation, SEBI also obtained information from MCA21 Portal.
 
The SEBI Order infers, “It is clear that Suraksha had issued and allotted Redeemable Preference Shares to at least 794 investors and raised an amount of at least Rs82.23 lakh during the financial year 2012-13.”
 
SEBI points out, “The number of investors to whom the Offer of RPS was made by Suraksha in a single allotment (on 01.06.2012) was much beyond the prescribed limit of forty-nine persons. In view of the above stated facts, the Offer of RPS by Suraksha prima facie qualifies as a public issue of securities under Section 67(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, which has been elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Sahara Case.”
 
SEBI continues, “it will follow that since the Offer of RPS is a public issue of securities, such securities shall also have to be listed on a recognised stock exchange, as mandated under Section 73 of the Companies Act, 1956.”
 
Hence, SEBI infers, “In the facts of the instant case, it prima facie appears that Suraksha has violated the provisions of Section 73 of the Companies Act, 1956, in respect of the Offer of RPS.”
 
With respect to prospectus for public issue, the SEBI Order says, “Having made a public offer, Suraksha was required to register a prospectus with the RoC under Section 60 of the Companies Act, 1956. In this case, there is no evidence on record to indicate that the requirement had been complied with, by Suraksha. In view of the same, I find that Suraksha has prima facie not complied with the provisions of Section 60 of the Companies Act, 1956.”
 
The SEBI Order points out, “I am of the view that Suraksha is prima facie engaged in fund mobilising activity from the public, through the Offer of RPS and as a result of the activity has violated the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (Section 56, Section 60read with Section 2(36), Section 73).”
 
In this case, SEBI feels that the money has been illegally collected from investors and must be returned to them. The SEBI Order continues, “In this context, Suraksha and its Directors are advised to show cause as to why suitable directions/prohibitions under Sections 11(1), 11(4), 11A and 11B of the SEBI Act including the following, should not be taken/imposed against them: 
 
i.  Directing them jointly and severally to refund money collected through the Offer of Redeemable Preference Shares along with interest, promised to investors therein; 
 
ii.  Directing them to not issue prospectus or any offer document or issue advertisement for soliciting money from the public for the issue of securities for an appropriate period; 
 
iii.  Directing them to refrain from accessing the securities market and prohibiting them from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities for an appropriate period.”
 
Finally, the SEBI Order warns that the Order is without prejudice to the right of SEBI to take any other action that may be initiated against Suraksha and its directors, in accordance with law.
 

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)