CA Exam postponed as centres were holding UPSC exams: ICAI
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has clarified that the postponement of exams on June 2 and 4 was because the examination centers were holding UPSC tests on the same day.
 
The paper on June 4 was postponed to June 13 so that Group I of CA final exams was completed before commencing Group II papers, ICAI said on Wednesday.
 
"Postponement of Paper on June 2 to June 4 was occasioned by the inability expressed by many exam centres to conduct the exam on that date owing to their holding Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) exams on that day," ICAI said in a statement.
 
Besides, the institute clarified that the postponement of Paper on June 9 to June 13 was necessitated for the convenience of the common candidates of the Foundation Exam of ICAI and the Foundation exam of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India scheduled on June 9.
 
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.

User

PepsiCo finally withdraws all lawsuits against Gujarat potato farmers
The controversy over PepsiCo's legal action against Gujarat's potato farmers was set to rest on Friday with the American food and beverages giant withdrawing all its suits alleging infringement of intellectual property rights involving nine farmers from two courts in the state in the wake of public anger and global embarrassment.
 
The company sought an early hearing in the cases against four potato farmers in the Commercial Court of Ahmedabad and five at a district court in Modasa in Sabarkantha and moved an application to withdraw the legal suits, which was accepted.
 
PepsiCo India Holdings had slapped a Rs 1 crore lawsuit on the farmers for allegedly growing the FL2027 or FC5 variety of potatoes, on which the company claimed exclusive right under the PPV&FR Act, 2001. The variety is used for the multinational's popular Lay's chips.
 
The counsel for the farmers Anand Yagnik told reporters that it was rare for a multinational to withdraw legal suits especially against the marginalized and downtrodden.
 
"These farmers are into subsistence farming and not commercial farming. This is the first instance where PepsiCo has withdrawn suits not only against the farmers of Sabarkantha but also against Aravalli and Banaskantha (districts). With this withdrawal, the ill-conceived initiative of PepsiCo to threaten farmers with litigation has come to an end," Yagnik said.
 
The farmers' rights groups and civil society representatives mounted their attack with a call for a boycott of PepsiCo products.
 
Farmers' rights groups described this as a "victory of farmers" and stated that while the US-headquartered food and beverages player had been taught a lesson, it was now up to the Government of India to pro-actively take up measures to uphold farmers' rights.
 
Kapil Shah, convenor of the recently-formed Beej Adhikar Manch asserted that, "Today's development should not mean that the public campaign is over, the battle is only half won. The Government of India had so far maintained an ominous silence on the issue of farmers' seed freedom, taking cover of the matter being sub judice. Now it must make it amply clear that such litigation is not acceptable."
 
"Nothing less than a reiteration of farmers overriding rights will be acceptable to us. If government wants to help farmers, it should actually get an undertaking from PepsiCo India that it will not resort to these intimidation tactics ever again," said Gabhubhai Chowdhari, of RSS-affiliate Bharatiya Kisan Sangh.
 
The farmers also demanded an apology and compensation from the company for the harassment they were subjected to because of the legal cases on them.
 
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for PepsiCo India reiterated the company's position. "To safeguard the larger interest of farmers, PepsiCo India was compelled to take judicial recourse to protect its registered variety. PepsiCo from the very start had also offered an amicable settlement to farmers. After discussions with the government, the company has agreed to withdraw cases against farmers. We are relying on the said discussions to find a long-term and an amicable resolution of all issues around seed protection."
 
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.
 

User

Bengaluru Court Holds Asianet and Suvarna News Liable For Defamation. Awards Rs50 lakh to Divya Spandana
A civil court in Bengaluru on Wednesday held Asianet and Suvarna News liable for defaming actor-turned-politician Divya Spandana by wrongfully linking her to the 2013 edition of Indian Premier League (IPL) spot fixing scam. The court also asked both the TV channels to pay damages of Rs50 lakh to Ms Spandana, a former member of the Parliament (MP) says a report from LiveLaw.in.
 
According to the report, the court allowed the prayer of the former MP for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining these news networks from telecasting any programs linking her to the match fixing or spot fixing scandals.
 
"On perusal of the records, it is clear that the plaintiff has blemishless records and is known as a good actress in Kannada film industry and has also worked as MP," the report says, quoting Justice Patil Nagalinganagouda from the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru.
 
Ms Spandana is the former brand ambassador of Royal Challengers Bangalore team in the IPL. In May 2013, Suvarna News, owned and controlled by Asianet aired two programs on her alleged involvement in the IPL betting and spot fixing scandal. Citing police enquiry, the channels also claimed involvement of two Kannada film stars in the scandal. 
 
The actor turned politician then filed a defamation suit against the TV channels. She contended that during 2013 she was not associated with the cricket tournament in any manner and was campaigning in the Karnataka assembly elections.  
 
"..There are no records produced on behalf of the defendant to show that the plaintiff, being a brand ambassador of the Royal Challengers Bangalore Team, was involved in the betting and spot fixing scandal as transmitted in the questioned program by the defendants. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that act of the defendants is in complete violation of journalistic ethics and seeks to deliberately destroy the popularity of the plaintiff and that the act of the defendants is mala fide, with an intention to defame her dignity," the report says, quoting from the Court order.
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)