Profit booking should be resorted to around the resistance level of 5,742
S&P Nifty close: 5,577.65
Short Term: Up Medium Term: Sideways Long Term: Down
The bulls finally succeeded in pushing the Nifty above the resistance line in black. The volumes, too, improved significantly after the drop witnessed last week. The week’s roller coaster saw the Nifty gain 219 points (4.09%) on higher volumes, thus removing the doubts regarding this rise, at least to a certain extent. The histogram MACD, which is above the median level, moved higher indicating that the bulls remain in control.
The rise was broad-based as all the sectoral indices, barring pharma, ended in the green. The sectoral indices which outperformed were CNX Realty (+5.53%), CNX Metal (+5.42%), CNX Finance (+4.95%) and CNX Auto (+4.41%) while the underperformers were CNX Pharma (-2.01%), CNX Media (+0.77%), CNX FMCG (+1.09%), and CNX Consumption (+1.54%).
Here are some key levels to watch out for this week
• As long as the S&P Nifty stays above 5,498 points (pivot) the bulls will be in control.
• Support levels in declines are pegged at 5,411 and 5,244 points.
• Resistance levels on the upside are pegged at 5,665 and 5,753 points.
The Nifty broke above crucial resistance levels, thus removing any ambiguity as to who is in control. Unless and until the 5,350 points (support in blue) is broken the overall trend continues to be up. From a trading perspective the support is pegged at 5,498 points this week and should be used as a SL on longs. The direction is firmly up and profit booking should be resorted to around the resistance levels for this week, mentioned above.
(Vidur Pendharkar works as a consultant technical analyst & chief strategist at www.trend4casting.com.)
There are several institutions or officials, including the Election Commission and District Collectors who perform quasi-judicial functions. But it was never felt that they cannot function without someone with a judicial background. Why then it is being made mandatory for the Information Commission under the RTI? Hope the Supreme Court finds a way which does not result in the kiss of death for this cherished right, says Shailesh Gandhi, former CIC
I remember a story I had heard as a child. A very beautiful princess had a curse upon her. If she kissed anybody, the person would die in a few years. She was virtuous and good, but whenever she fell in love with a handsome prince and kissed him, the prince would wither away and die. The Supreme Court has pronounced a verdict on 13th September about the Constitution and selection of Information Commissioners which could have a similar effect on the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In the judgement in Namit Sharma Vs Union in WP(C) 210 of 2012 the Supreme Court has ruled that the RTI Act is not unconstitutional, but has then said that since the work of the Commission is quasi-judicial, at least 50% of all commissioners must be judges. All benches must be of two members, out of which one member should be a judicial member. It further directs that First Appellate Authorities should be legally equipped.
There are many quasi-judicial functions performed in our country. The Election Commission is certainly performing a quasi-judicial function. Yet, for years it was not felt that it could not function without retired judges, and has delivered its duty in a time-bound manner. Every collector performs quasi-judicial functions, but they need not be legally qualified. However, for understanding and implementing the Right to Information, people with judicial experience are required.
One of the grounds for this direction by the apex court is Section 22 of the Act. The section expressly provides that the provisions of the RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the RTI Act. In other words, where there is any inconsistency in a law as regards furnishing of information, such law shall be superseded by the RTI Act. Insertion of a non- obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act was a conscious choice of the Parliament to safeguard the citizens’ fundamental right to information from convoluted interpretations of other laws adopted by public authorities to deny information. The presence of Section 22 of the RTI Act simplifies the process of implementing the right to information both for citizens as well the Public Information Officer (PIO); citizens may seek to enforce their fundamental right to information by simply invoking the provisions of the RTI Act.
Given the above, two scenarios may be envisaged:
Parliament had consciously inserted this clause to ensure that the RTI Act is simple to use and can be accessed by ordinary citizens, without the trappings of a legally perfect process, which does not deliver to the poorest citizen. The apex court has ruled that “The Information Commissions at the respective levels shall henceforth work in benches of two members each. One of them being a “judicial member”, while the other an “expert member”. Immediately, most Information Commissions will stop functioning since most of them do not have judicial members. Even when they do manage to get these, they will have to function as two-member benches, reducing their disposal to about 50% of the current disposal.
In the Central Commission—at the present rate of disposal—it appeared that there would be over three year’s backlog in the next five years. With the disposal dropping to half, the backlog will be over five years in the same period. The same position will prevail in most of state commissions.
Have we forgotten Justice Mathew’s clarion call in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428—“In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. Their right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can at any rate have no repercussion on public security”.
We might retain the process of following the Constitution and the legitimacy of various Institutions, but if we do not deliver to the citizens, we fail as a nation. In this case the fundamental right of citizens is at stake. Citizens have great respect and hope from the Right to Information Act. This is a request to the Supreme Court to find a way which does not result in the kiss of death for this cherished right.
(Shailesh Gandhi served as Central Information Commissioner under the RTI Act, 2005, during 18 September 2008 to 6 July 2012. He is a graduate in Civil Engineering from IIT-Bombay. Before becoming a full time RTI activist in 2003, he sold his packaging business, Clear Plastics. In 2008, he was conferred the Nani Palkhivala Memorial Award for civil liberties.)
BCCI cracked the whip on the cash-strapped Deccan Chargers by terminating its contract, ending the suspense on the fate of the beleaguered franchise in the IPL
New Delhi: The Board Of Control For Cricket In India (BCCI) on Saturday sought to justify the decision to terminate the Indian Premier League (IPL) contract of debt-ridden Deccan Chargers, saying it was compelled to take action after the beleaguered franchise claimed that it had not committed any breaches and threatened to take legal recourse, reports PTI.
The BCCI said the decision to terminate the IPL contract of Deccan Chargers was taken after "careful deliberation" and only due to the absolute inability of the franchise to effectively run the team.
In a late night development on Friday, the BCCI cracked the whip on the cash-strapped Deccan Chargers by terminating the contract, ending the suspense on the fate of the beleaguered franchise. The decision was taken at an emergency Governing Council meeting of the IPL in southern Indian city of Chennai.
"BCCI was compelled to hold an emergency meeting of the IPL Governing Council late Friday evening to discuss certain developments due to the Deccan Chargers' defaults," Board secretary Sanjay Jagdale said in a press release.
"This evening (Friday), BCCI has received a lawyers notice invoking arbitration from the franchise stating that it had not committed any breaches and even if such breaches were committed, the BCCI should not act to terminate the franchise till Yes Bank Ltd furnishes sufficient finance to cure the breaches.
"By this, Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd has clearly admitted its inability to cure its breaches within the time stipulated in the BCCI notice despite every bit of assistance from the BCCI. Since the month of May, BCCI has received repeated assurances that the overdue player fees would be paid; all of these promises have been unfulfilled," Jagdale said.
Jagdale said the BCCI made every effort to save the beleaguered franchise which also rejected the sole bid that was received at the auction.
"Despite the Bombay High Court appointing a court officer to act as Observer at the opening of the tender, which was conducted under the aegis of the BCCI to save the beleaguered franchise, Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd rejected the bid that was received in the amount of Rs450 crores cash and an equal sum in convertible debentures. This was despite the bidder meeting the eligibility criteria of the BCCI," Jagdale said in the release.
Jagdale said the Governing Council took note of the sudden change of stance by the franchise and also the fact that any further extension of time would seriously prejudice the interests of the players.
"Considering the stated position of the Deccan franchise to refuse to rectify the various defaults including payments to players and foreign Boards as also the deleterious effect such conduct would have on the reputation of the IPL and the franchise itself, a decision was taken to forthwith terminate the Deccan Chargers franchise".
"The BCCI is completely justified in this action which was taken with careful deliberation and only due to the absolute inability of the franchise to effectively run the team," he said.
The termination of charges means that they will get no money and the BCCI will be entitled to encash the bank guarantee and make the necessary payment to the players and other stake holders. A similar thing has happened when the contract of Kochi Tuskers Kerala was terminated.
According to a top BCCI official, the Board will now explore the option of floating a fresh tender for a new IPL team for the sixth edition next year. The matter will be discussed at the IPL Governing Council meeting and the Working Committee meeting in Chennai.
"This option would be discussed when the governing council meets as we want nine teams to take part in the next edition of the IPL," the official said.
The BCCI, it is learnt, also took legal opinion before deciding to terminate the Deccan contract mainly on the ground that it mortgaged the team to a consortium of banks which was clearly a breach of contract.
The Deccan Chargers owned by Deccan Chronicle Holdings, was hoping to resolve its financial problems by selling the team but it rejected the sole bid it received at the auction in Chennai on Thursday.
PVP Ventures Ltd, a Hyderabad-based urban infrastructure and film production company, had offered Rs900 crores but Deccan rejected it finding the terms of payment and the amount unacceptable.
It is said that the banks were primarily unhappy with the mode of payment which ultimately led to the deal falling through.
Deccan Chronicle Holdings purchased the Hyderabad franchise for Rs428 crore in 2008. At the auction, the base price was said to be around Rs750 crore.
The winning bidder had to meet BCCI's eligibility criteria and other requirements. This was the first time an entire IPL franchise has been put on the block by its owners, although Rajasthan Royals sold a small stake in 2009 to Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty and her husband Raj Kundra.