Tata sons informed RBI and indicted that, its current model best supports the needs of the group’s domestic and overseas strategy
Tata Sons, the holding company of the India’s largest, $100 billion conglomerate Tata Group, has withdrawn its application of new banking licence.
In a release, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) said Tata Sons has withdrawn its application made on 1 July 2013 for new bank licence and the central bank has accepted withdrawal of the application.
“The company has indicated that its current financial services operating model best supports the needs of the Tata group’s domestic and overseas strategy, and provides adequate operating flexibility to its companies, while securing the interests of the group’s diverse stakeholder base,” the release stated.
Tata Sons in a statement said, "Tata Sons remains committed to financial inclusion and believes that the group’s existing financial services footprint uniquely positions it to provide technology excellence and access to India’s hinterland. The company shall continue to monitor developments in this space with great interest and looks forward to participating in the banking sector at an appropriate time".
Earlier last week, speaking at BANCON 2013 in Mumbai, finance minister P Chidambaram had said, “In January 2014 new banking licenses will be issued and I wish it would be given to banks with innovative or different models of banking. We need different kinds of banks to cater to different segments in our country. And I would regret if 'clone' banks are given new licences”.
In February, the RBI released guidelines to allow corporate houses to form banks, part of an effort to expand access to financial services in a country where only about half the population has a bank account. With this effect total 26 corporate firms applied for banking licence including big conglomerates like Aditya Birla Nuvo, Bajaj Finance, L&T Finance, and Reliance Capital.
After Tata’s withdrawal Bank licence application count comes to 25. The winners of banking licence are expected to be announced by the first quarter of 2014.
Maruti Suzuki to recall 1,492 vehicles sold after 19 October 2013 to replace defective steering column of its Ertiga, Swift, Swift Dzire and A-Star variants
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (Maruti Suzuki), the country's largest carmaker said it would recall 1,492 units to inspect the steering column and replace it, if found affected. The carmaker would recall 306 units of Ertiga, 592 of Swift, 581 of Swift Dzire and13of A-Star manufactured during 19 October 2013 to 26 October 2013.
“If the steering column is found defective, the company will replace the steering column free of cost. This exercise is limited to vehicles within the above specified range and does not pertain to any other vehicle of the Company or any of its exports,” Maruti Suzuki said in a notice on its website.
Maruti Suzuki dealers will contact owners of all vehicles which need to get inspected. Company already dispatched the new steering column to the dealer workshops.
Users of Maruti Suzuki cars (Ertiga, Swift, Dzire and A-Star) purchased after 19 October 2013 can check the website http://marutisuzuki.com/ and fill the chassis number on the website or can contact nearest Maruti Suzuki dealer workshop to ascertain if their car is among the above vehicles.
During the September, the carmaker reported a 19.6% growth in vehicle its sale and sold 2.75 lakh units, including exports, during the second quarter.
What happened in the Supreme Court on Tuesday as the judges heard a public interest litigation that challenged the constitutional validity of Aadhaar?
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued notices to state governments to explain their stance on making the unique identity (UID) number, Aadhaar compulsory.
Hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenged the constitutional validity of Aadhaar number being issued by Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the apex court opined that it would not want to be in a situation where a state government would later plead that they were not given an opportunity to be heard.
Shyam Divan, the counsel for Maj Gen (retd) SG Vombatkere, cited example of several States which made Aadhaar mandatory for availing of host of services. For instance, he said in Kerala and Himachal Pradesh, admissions to school required students to have Aadhaar. Maharashtra recently made Aadhaar compulsory for government employees to draw their salary and pay slips. Madhya Pradesh followed the Centre’s diktat to make Aadhaar mandatory for receiving pension and provident fund benefits in three districts while Himachal Pradesh linked the Aadhaar scheme to offer scholarships in universities.
The bench of Justices BS Chauhan and SA Bobde was initially of the view that the petitioners are only bothered by the government making UID compulsory. So, the Bench asked Divan, “If we order that it cannot make it mandatory, would you have a case?”
Divan replied that the issues are deeper and he needs time to explain the whole scheme. The Aadhaar project, the senior advocate said, was ultra vires as it did not have a statutory backing. Moreover, no statutory guidance exists on crucial questions such as—who can collect biometric information, how it is to be collected and stored, protection of collected data, who can use the data and when it must be used.
The Supreme Court then asked, “Would you have a case if Parliament passes a law giving UID legal status?” Divan replied that even if the Constitution is amended, UID would be illegal.
Divan then took the court through the flow chart of how UID enrolments are done, the kind of private companies are involved and the dangers of the scheme. He pointed out how UIDAI signed memorandum of understanding with States which had no legal sanctity. He said, State appoints registrars, who could even be a private person, who engaged private companies to collect biometric data. There is also the fear that the private party which collects the data then stores it in a personal laptop, which does not belong to the government.
The counsel for Maj Gen (retd) Vombatkere, then briefly mentioned some abuses which could be carried out using UID.
He brought out how if a password of an ATM card was compromised, the cardholder could change the password, but if one's fingerprints or iris (biometrics) are the passwords, then the person whose password is compromised has no remedy. The court wanted to know the definition of biometrics in UID and spent some time studying it.
He also told the apex court about how UID changes the relationship between the state and the citizen. Convicted criminals relinquish some privacy rights. They have their fingerprints taken for record. Here the government is treating all people as criminals. One of the judges on the bench was very interested in this line of argument and asked many probing questions.
Interestingly, neither the UIDAI nor union government have filed any counter to the PIL. They have not denied any of the allegations made in the petition by Maj Gen (retd) Vombatkere and Col (retd) Matthew Thomas.