Air fares likely to go up
Airlines are looking at 10%-15% hike in airfares due to sharp increase in aviation turbine fuel (ATF) prices every month since August 2017. The most recent increase came when oil marketing companies raised prices by 6%. These hikes come at a time when the rupee is weakening against the US dollar.
 
After the latest price revision, ATF will now cost Rs53,045 per kilolitre in Delhi, up Rs3,025 per kl from Rs50,020. This is the third consecutive monthly hike. While no airline came on record, they said the twin impact of costlier ATF and weaker rupee leaves them with few options but to raise fares unless they want to meet a Kingfisher - like fate.
 
In addition, from 1 August 2017 the government has started levying a regional connectivity cess of Rs5,000 on each flights. Most airlines have transferred this cost to passengers.
  • User

    Capturing consumer attention in a competitive landscape
    The onset of summer and rising mercury levels will soon lead to a huge demand for ice-creams and frozen desserts across India. This implies a huge sales opportunity for these companies in India. However, with HUL filing a case against Amul, an interesting twist has been added to the tale.
     
    The point of contention is a media campaign launched by Amul to educate customers on the difference between ice-creams and frozen desserts -- the key difference being that the former uses dairy fat while the latter uses vegetable oil.
     
    However, the basis of the legal tussle and concern shown by HUL to Amul's media campaign is unwarranted due to the following reasons:
     
    Firstly, the TV commercial and print advertisement recently launched by Amul is just an act of creating awareness regarding the fundamental difference between ice-creams and frozen desserts. The whole idea is to allow the consumer make a conscious choice while trying to soothe their taste-buds and beat the summer.
     
    There are just a few who really understand or appreciate this difference while making a purchase despite the labelling as per Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) guidelines. In such a scenario, communicating the facts or creating awareness about the ingredients of the product offerings always builds trust and transparency with the customer and should be encouraged by all companies.
     
    Secondly, HUL's apprehension regarding negative publicity and impact on its sales is unfounded -- the reason being that the campaign does not say that other companies are making a false representation on their product labelling. It is simply highlighting the difference between ice-cream and frozen dessert as per the technical definition by FSSAI. This kind of messaging that empowers customers to make conscious choices should only be encouraged. 
     
    As of now, a majority of the consumers in India buy ice-creams or frozen desserts sold by ice-cream carts and shops on the assumption that they are buying ice-creams.
     
    Thirdly, the ice-cream and frozen dessert industry has been growing in India at an average of 15-17 per cent. The growing demand potential is also evident from the entry of local and multinational players like Naturals, Havmore, Fresh and Naturelle, Cocoberry, Hagen-Dazs and the like.
     
    Both Amul and HUL carry a strong brand appeal of quality product offerings in this industry and maintain strong market shares in India. So, it is unlikely that consumers who like HUL's frozen desserts and ice-creams will make a shift to Amul or other ice-cream brands. 
     
    The taste, pricing, ease of availability and variety are some of the dominant factors in making a choice of an ice-cream or a dessert. HUL is as strong as Amul on all these aspects of value offerings, creation and delivery. The concern by HUL regarding switching of customers to the ice-cream players simply due to media campaign by Amul lacks sufficient appeal.
     
    The companies must realise that the rules of the game are changing with their trying innovative ways of capturing consumer attention in a competitive landscape. There are two ways to compete in India. One, the businesses can fight for survival in the existing markets by focusing their budget and resources on advertising, star campaigning and premium product positioning. Two, the businesses can choose to act differently by focusing on shared value orientation in terms of defining new products or markets or networks for value creation and delivery. 
     
    The companies can deliberate on the following questions to decide upon the winning combination: What kind of product offerings in a specific industry provides more value to the target segment? How can the companies reconfigure their value chain to create a positive social and environmental impact-based differentiation? What kind of engagement models can be designed to bring together the marginalised people from the poor communities as suppliers, employees, or micro-entrepreneurs across the value chain?How can the companies redefine their business model to target the rural markets for their offerings?
     
    These are the kind of questions that will define the future of every industry in India. The sooner companies realise this reality, the better will be their chances of survival.
     
    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.
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User

    Shocking! Unitech depositors asked to pursue other remedies by Tribunal
    The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the new avatar of Company Law Board (CLB), while dismissing petition filed by Unitech Ltd, has asked "depositors to pursue their remedies as per the law". The NCLT also suggested the concerned Registrar of Companies (RoC) to take appropriate action against the company under section 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. Action under this section includes fine of at least Rs1 crore (maximum Rs10 crore) and imprisonment for up to seven years for company official or a fine between Rs25 lakh to Rs2 crore. However, as per section 47 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991, the Bench is deemed as a Court or lawful authority for prosecution or punishment of a person who wilfully disobeys any direction or order of such Bench. Therefore, the question here is why the Bench did not use its powers to act against Unitech.
     
    In an order on 4 July 2016, BSV Prakash Kumar, Member (Judicial) of the NCLT said, "When this petitioner company could not repay Rs30 crore of money in the time given by this Bench as asked by the company on 11 January 2016, it could not be possible for the company to clear Rs550 crore dues payable to the depositors in near future."
     
    "Seeing the developments so far taken place in this case, this Bench is of the opinion that this company could not be in a position to repay the depositors even if further time is extended; therefore this Bench, for having the company defaulted complying with the order dated 11 March 2016, dismissed the petition (CP (T) 10/18/2015) leaving it open to the depositors to pursue their remedies as per law. Accordingly, this Bench hereby suggests RoC concerned to take appropriate action against the company u/s 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013," the Bench added.
     
    Earlier on 11 March 2016, the NCLT had passed an order directing Unitech to repay Rs30 crore of depositor's money on or before 30 June 2016 in three instalments. The company's managing director (MD) had given an undertaking through an affidavit, to repay Rs30 crore between 1st February to 30 September 2016 to depositors who have invested up to Rs25,000, Rs50,000 and Rs1 lakh and whose deposits have matured up to 31 March 2016 as per the original date of maturity. However, the Bench did not agree with the proposal.
     
    The MD of Unitech then filed another affidavit on 11 March 2016 undertaking to repay Rs30 crore in three monthly instalments till 30 June 2016. But Unitech did not pay any money.
     
    Since 14 May 2015, the Bench said, it has given several adjournments in this matter hoping that the company wold repay money to the depositors at least as per the undertaking given by the company. "But, till date, no undertaking has been complied with. In the past, this Bench even appointed a Sale Committee on 15 July 2015 to generate funds by selling the properties of the company, but no progress has taken place in selling the properties of the company," the Bench noted.
     
    It then dismissed the petition filed by Unitech and asked depositors to pursue other legal remedies to recover their invested money. The Bench also suggested the RoC to take appropriate action against Unitech under section 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. 
     
    Here is what section 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 says...
     
    Section 74- Repayment of deposits, etc., accepted before commencement of this Act. 
    (3) If a company fails to repay the deposit or part thereof or any interest thereon within the time specified in sub-section (1) or such further time as may be allowed by the Tribunal under sub-section (2), the company shall, in addition to the payment of the amount of deposit or part thereof and the interest due, be punishable with fine which shall not be less than Rs1 crore rupees but which may extend to Rs10 crore and every officer of the company, who is in default, shall be punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to seven years or with fine which shall not be less than Rs25 lakh but which may extend to Rs2 crore, or with both.
     
    What depositors of Unitech can do now
    As per Section 10F of the Companies Act, any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Company Law Board may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Company Law Board to him on any question of law arising out of such order.
     
    Depositors can request the concerned RoC to initiate action against Unitech under section 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
     
    NOTE: We at Moneylife request all readers not to share their mobile number/s here. This is a public platform and your mobile number/s may be misused. Kindly do not post your mobile number/s.
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User

    COMMENTS

    Ashok Jain

    2 years ago

    I deposited Rs. 25,000/- as fix deposit in the year 2011 dec, and the maturity was on dec 2014 for the three years . But till date company is not refunding the said amount which
    I have invested an amount of Rs.50,000/- in Fixed deposit for 3 years on 13/07/2013 with date of maturity 09/07/2016. But after the date of maturity the company is not paying me the maturity amoubt. Kindly help/tell how to get this amount of maturity from this builder. I have spoken to customer care so many times at Gurgaon and tried to get the contact number of senior officer to whom I can talk but not provided. Recently I have written a letter to Mr. S.R Tiwari (Manager) but till date not got any kind of reply from him. Hence kindly help me as this amount was invested in the name of my grand son for his future.

    Satinder Malhotra

    2 years ago

    I deposited Rs. 25,000/- as fix deposit in the year 2011 dec, and the maturity was on dec 2014 for the three years . But till date company is not refunding the said amount which was rs. 36,000/- at the time of maturity in 2014. But after maturity date three years gone I so many times visited co. office at south city, gurgoan but no one respond in this matter.
    Kindly suggest what to do now..?

    REPLY

    Geetanshu Gupta

    In Reply to Satinder Malhotra 1 year ago

    How can I join the petition with you people. Kindly provide me the link

    Mahesh Bansal

    3 years ago

    Unitech and jp associates both are shelters by NCLB therefore invested are not getting their money.

    Mahesh Bansal

    3 years ago

    Unitech and jp associates both are shelters by NCLB therefore invested are not getting their money.

    sonia

    3 years ago

    FINALLY, somebody in Government of India is waking up to the fact that UNITECH is India’s top wealth destroyer, and is therefore putting a bit of heat on its promoters (much, much more heat is needed).
    Unitech Ltd., at the time of illegally floating its FD scheme in 2012, had the following directors mentioned on its FD scheme’s forms dated April 14, 2012:

    1. Mr. Ramesh Chandra Executive Chairman
    2. Mr. Sanjay Chandra Managing Director
    3. Mr. Ajay Chandra Managing Director
    4. Mr. Ravinder Singhania Director
    5. Ms. Minoti Bahri Director
    6. Mr. G. R. Ambwani Director (FORMER MCD 1984)
    7. Mr. Anil Harish Director
    8. Mr. Sanjay Bahadur Director
    9. Dr. P.K. Mohanty Director (co-founder of Unitech Ltd., Orissa Sponge Iron ref. also COAL SCAM)

    and the following mentioned on the same FD scheme’s forms as managers to the aforementioned illegal FD scheme:
    1. BAJAJ CAPITAL LTD. (official financiers of AAP, as per media announcement made by AAP?)
    2. KARVY STOCK BROKING LTD.
    3. R.R. INVESTORS CAPITAL SERVICES LTD.
    4. ALMONDZ GLOBAL SEC. LTD.
    5. SMC GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD.
    6. JM FINANCIAL SERVICES (P) LTD.
    7. HDFC SECURITIES LTD.
    8. SECURITY INVESTMENTS LTD.
    9. BHARAT BHUSHAN & CO.
    10, INDIA INFOLINE LTD.

    Therefore, all the above-mentioned Unitech directors, its chairman and investment companies ought to be included in the probe into this illegal FD scheme and punished for willfully cheating the public.


    FINALLY, somebody in Government of India is waking up to the fact that UNITECH is India’s top wealth destroyer, and is therefore putting a bit of heat on its promoters (much, much more heat is needed).
    Unitech Ltd., at the time of illegally floating its FD scheme in 2012, had the following directors mentioned on its FD scheme’s forms dated April 14, 2012:
    1. Mr. Ramesh Chandra Executive Chairman
    2. Mr. Sanjay Chandra Managing Director
    3. Mr. Ajay Chandra Managing Director
    4. Mr. Ravinder Singhania Director
    5. Ms. Minoti Bahri Director
    6. Mr. G. R. Ambwani Director (FORMER MCD 1984)
    7. Mr. Anil Harish Director
    8. Mr. Sanjay Bahadur Director
    9. Dr. P.K. Mohanty Director (co-founder of Unitech Ltd., Orissa Sponge Iron ref. also COAL SCAM)
    and the following mentioned on the same FD scheme’s forms as managers to the aforementioned illegal FD scheme:
    BAJAJ CAPITAL LTD. (official financiers of AAP, as per media announcement made by AAP?)
    KARVY STOCK BROKING LTD.
    R.R. INVESTORS CAPITAL SERVICES LTD.
    ALMONDZ GLOBAL SEC. LTD.
    SMC GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD.
    JM FINANCIAL SERVICES (P) LTD.
    HDFC SECURITIES LTD.
    SECURITY INVESTMENTS LTD.
    BHARAT BHUSHAN & CO.
    INDIA INFOLINE LTD.
    Therefore, all the above-mentioned Unitech directors, its chairman and investment companies ought to be included in the probe into this illegal FD scheme and punished for willfully cheating the public.


    Pramila Tyagi

    3 years ago

    My FD R no. 1215484 dated 29.04.2013 matured on 05.04.2014 and I sent original receipt to Unitech but no cheque for matured amount received. Even on my personal visit to their office no satisfactory reply from them. Kindly help me. Pramila

    Ashok Sachdeva

    3 years ago

    Dear all, it is not so that depositors can't do anything because they are unsecured creditors. I represented depositors as A.R. before NCLT DELHI, secured order. Then safeguarded the interest of depositors in NCLAT. Now proceeding with decree. Meanwhile pushing the matter along with ROC in Special court Dwarka Delhi. Results are good as on date. May take some more time but need not to get disappointed. All aggrieved may please get in touch Ashok Sachdeva pH. 9953850777 or mail their copies of fds at [email protected] I know it is a difficult situation for depositors living away from Delhi. But kindly have patience and do the needful.
    Regards
    Ashok Sachdeva

    Praveen Sehgal

    3 years ago

    I THINK COMPANY WILL NOT PAY IN THIS WAY WE ALL HAVE TO GIVE COURT A SUGGESTION AUCTION UNITECH PROPERTY IF THEY NOT PAY IN TIME OR GIVE US UNITECH ANY PROPERTY LEGALLY IN OUR POSESSION

    Hemant Gupta

    3 years ago

    ANY BODY CAN TOLD WHEN UNITECH REFUND MY MATURITY AMOUNT

    Hemant Gupta

    3 years ago

    I HAVE INVEST AS FD BUT MY FD AMOUNT ANT INTEREST NOT GET YET

    SHIVAJI THE BOSS

    3 years ago

    Invest in a bank fd only..the hard lesson I learnt. In India people are meant to be cheated.

    Sriram Ranganathan

    3 years ago

    We all know how the Directors & officers of MICRO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, Mahape, Navi Mumbai quickly latched on to a winding up petition filed by Bank of New York Mellon and ensured that the company was wound up quickly. The only small solace left is the company is now to be investigated by the SFIO. All companies are following this beaten track of voluntary or compulsory winding up and taking the "patli gali" route to cheat the depositors and other small lenders. This should STOP and that is possible only if the courts get proactive and first refer these cases to an investigation by EOW / SFIO with a stipulated time frame for completing the investigation first. There are lawyers and other sharks who facilitate the company directors for a fat fee in this process and this also needs to be plugged at the earliest possible.

    Sriram Ranganathan

    3 years ago

    Look at the manner in which one CLB member (now NCLT member) has connived with Unitech Limited and helped them buy time for over 1 year and finally the above stated order is passed. He constituted a "Sale Committee" for the land and ensured that the members of that Committee are paid "fees" and this included a former CLB Chairman. Finally Sale Committee says no sale of land is possible. Does it take >1 year to figure this out? Open connivance and corruption. This needs to be investigated by going through the "sham" orders passed by this member of CLB hearing after hearing. If B K Bansal had not got caught, Elder Pharma too would have taken a similar route. All this is happening under the very nose of the various investigating agencies. Sad state of affairs! Atleast Anuj Saxena of Elder Pharma should be brought to book and monies realised from the assets of the actor and of the company and this needs to be done quickly!!

    Dipakkumar J Shah

    3 years ago

    My one Application for FDR interest paid late is pending Before Company law Board Northern Region against Jindal Steel & Power Limited. Notice had been served to Company. More than 6 years had been passed but nothing ??? Even all mails ids of MCA officers are given on web of MCA are not working at all. Disc Data is full always bounce back.They do not have time to see our mails and disposs of the same. How much Disc Data is given not known? Like Mr ... recent case , like they must be using for taking money from Company nothing else. They might use e mail id for this purpose. In the name of corruption this is going on. There are more Black Money in Offices , Officers of MCA. See the case of M A Kuvadia. When he caught in Ahmedabad as OL in Calico Mills case , he had beennot removed from the post but, I think and belive that he had been promoted to!!!!!

    din.neer

    3 years ago

    The controlling authorities in India are weak and fragile. There is no government body that can assure you that you wont be cheated by any company or individual, and if so, severe consequences will follow. The NCLT has surrendered in a way. I had uploaded the "Investor Complaint Form" on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, but all went in vain. There is no action, neither any response on the issue lodged. I don't know whether approaching consumer court will work in this case or not. All the companies are looting the consumers: Unitech, Pearl, Sahara, JayPee, .... Some people say that this had happened due to a certain change in government rules of accepting deposits, which has barred some non-rating companies from taking deposits. If this is the case, government should ensure before making such rules that deposits of millions of investors don't get sunk.

    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

    online financial advisory
    Pathbreakers
    Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
    online financia advisory
    The Scam
    24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
    Moneylife Online Magazine
    Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
    financial magazines online
    Stockletters in 3 Flavours
    Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
    financial magazines in india
    MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
    (Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)
    FREE: Your Complete Family Record Book
    Keep all the Personal and Financial Details of You & Your Family. In One Place So That`s Its Easy for Anyone to Find Anytime
    We promise not to share your email id with anyone