Biased austerity

The austerity move adopted by the babus got a new dimension when corporate affairs minister Salman Khurshid pointed out that even private sector companies should refrain from doling out obscene salaries. But Mr Khurshid should also pay attention to the quasi-government companies, especially the National Stock Exchange (NSE).

The National Stock Exchange (NSE) has created a perception of being a government entity with its virtual monopoly over running the stock market. But it has the highest paid non-promoter executives in the country, Ravi Narain, managing director, and Chitra Ramakrishna, deputy managing director.
 
Mr Narain and Ms Ramakrishna had an astounding gross annual income of Rs6.89 crore and Rs4.21 crore respectively, besides other perks in 2008-09. The salary of Mr Narain is more than London Stock Exchange (LSE) chief Xavier Roulet (around Rs 5.6 crore) and equal to NYSE Euronext CEO’s, Jean-Fancoise Theodore (around Rs7 crore).
 
Comparatively, NSE’s supposed competitor Bombay Stock Exchange’s (BSE) CEO Madhu Kannan earned a gross income of Rs1.6crore.
 
Interestingly, the stock exchanges which are in charge of regulating listed companies themselves refrain from maintaining transparency. NSE refrains from giving any information via Right to Information (RTI). Even its annual reports are not easily available nor does it comply with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) norms.
 
The NSE has even filed a petition for a stay order on a request by the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) in Delhi from revealing any information relating to NSE. In its petition, NSE has stated that ‘they are a non-government private sector company’ and not under the jurisdiction of RTI. But how just is the argument of the NSE not to reveal any information, considering it has large public sector undertakings like State Bank of India, Life Insurance Company (LIC) etc. as investors? If NSE is a private sector company, it is the only one to have a virtual monopoly in a crucial business that deals with million of citizens.
- Aditya Kshirsagar [email protected]

Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

Firm Fabric
Shri Lakshmi Cotsyn Limited (SLCL) is a diversified textile manufacturer with a product range from embroidery, quilting and fusible interlining; it also has defence and army products like camouflage fabric uniforms and bullet-proof jackets. It sells many of these products to institutional clients. The company is implementing a three-phase expansion programme over FY06-09 to increase capacity...
Premium Content
Monthly Digital Access

Subscribe

Already A Subscriber?
Login
Yearly Digital Access

Subscribe

Moneylife Magazine Subscriber or MAS member?
Login

Yearly Subscriber Login

Enter the mail id that you want to use & click on Go. We will send you a link to your email for verficiation
Petition filed against SEBI in NSDL row

No matter how hard Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) chairman C B Bhave tries to dust the ashes of the 2005 IPO scam under the carpet, it comes right back to haunt him. An aggrieved investor, V Narayan Reddy, has filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, questioning the market regulator’s action of withholding a final order passed by its two-member committee with respect to the role of National Securities Depository Ltd (NSDL) in the IPO scam. He alleges that SEBI is not inclined to publish the order to prevent adverse consequences for Mr Bhave, as he was the chairman and managing director of NSDL when the scam occurred.
 
The final order was passed on 4 December 2008 by a two-member committee comprising independent directors of SEBI Board, Dr Mohan Gopal and V Leeladhar. The committee was specifically tasked with disposing the ongoing quasi-judicial proceedings against NSDL. The PIL came up before a bench comprising Chief Justice Anil Dave and C V Nagarjuna Reddy. The court has issued a notice to the regulator and posted the matter for hearing on 13 October 2009.
 
The petitioner also submitted that in addition to the failure of NSDL, there was also a failure of SEBI to protect the interest of the investors and regulate the depository system. He claims that SEBI has ulterior motives in not publishing the final order. It is his belief that apart from indicting NSDL, the order also indicts SEBI for its failure to regulate depositories and that it has also given directions to SEBI to conduct an investigation of individuals at NSDL who were responsible for this scam. He opines that SEBI’s reluctance to release the order also stems from its efforts to protect then NSDL chairman CB Bhave. To avoid conflict of interest, Mr Bhave has since recused himself from the ongoing proceedings with regard to role of NSDL in the IPO scam.

Instead of complying with the order, the SEBI Board by a resolution dated 13 April2009, decided to withhold publication of the order on the ground that it was examining whether SEBI has the power to review the said order. Even after ten months of passing of the final order, SEBI is yet to release the order or take any steps to comply with the directions given in the said order.
 
Subsequent to the scam coming to light in 2005, SEBI had conducted an investigation into the role of NSDL in the said scam. Pursuant to the investigation, SEBI issued an interim order that found several failures on the part of NSDL to detect and prevent the scam. It was found that numerous benami accounts had been opened with NSDL and CSDL between 2003 and 2005, with the aim of cornering shares reserved for retail investors. Both these depositories were aware that dummy accounts were being opened, but failed to prevent the scam. In view of these grave lapses, the interim order had directed a revamping of NSDL management. NSDL, however, challenged the validity of this order before the Special Appellate Tribunal (SAT), but did not press the appeal because of a statement from SEBI’s counsel that the observations made in the interim order are “prima facie observations” and are subject to a final order passed by SEBI. The two-member committee of SEBI, after hearing the arguments of NSDL and SEBI, passed a series of final orders on 4.12.2008 with respect to the role of NSDL in the IPO scam.
 
The petitioner has requested the bench to consider the action of SEBI in not publishing the final order as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and ultra-vires of the provisions of the SEBI Act and Depositories Act. He has also requested the court to direct SEBI to publish the suppressed committee report and take appropriate action as per the direction given by the two-member committee to prevent the fraud and abuse of the depository system.
 

Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

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

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)