In your interest.
Online Personal Finance Magazine
No beating about the bush.
Ajay Mafatlal has moved the Bombay High Court to quash an FIR filed against him and cousin Shailaja Parekh for allegedly threatening brother Atulya and sister-in-law Sheetal
The feud in the Mafatlal family has taken a new turn with Ajay Mafatlal moving the Bombay High Court to quash a first information report (FIR) filed against him and cousin Shailaja Parekh for allegedly threatening brother Atulya and sister-in-law Sheetal.
After the demise of Yogendra Mafatlal in January 2005, the owner of Mafatlal Industries, his siblings, Ajay and Atulya, have been locked in a property dispute.
When the matter came up for hearing on Tuesday, Justice SC Dharmadhikari inquired on how an FIR could be lodged in a case in which offences were non-cognisable.
The court has asked the government pleader Shahji Shinde to ensure that the investigating officer remained personally present during arguments on Wednesday.
On 26 December 2007, Atulya and wife Sheetal had lodged a complaint with the Gamdevi police alleging that Ajay and Shailaja were threatening them.
Based on their complaint, the police filed an FIR under section 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 506 II (criminal intimidation) of IPC.
Ajay had secured anticipatory bail but later withdrew it as the offences were bailable. The police did not arrest him but filed a charge-sheet before the Girgaum magistrate who took cognisance of the offences. Ajay was arrested and granted bail.
Ajay's counsel Sayaji Nangre argued in the High Court that these offences were non-cognisable and the police should not have filed the FIR. Besides, he argued, there was no material against Ajay in the charge-sheet. The counsel urged the court to quash the FIR.
Mr Nangre argued that the police could not investigate a non-cognisable offence till they seek permission from the magistrate which they had not done in this case.
The court may pass its order on Wednesday and has asked the investigating officer to remain present.
The market regulator has disposed of a case against Himachal Futuristic Communications for suspected involvement in rigging share prices in a case dating back to 1999-2001
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has disposed proceedings against Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd (HFCL) in the 2001 share price manipulation case, with a consent order.
SEBI in an order CO/ID2/739/332/2010 dated 28 January 2010, said: "This consent order disposes of the above mentioned proceedings under Sections 11(4) (b) and 11B of SEBI Act, 1992 read with Regulation 11 of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003, pending against the applicants named above in the matter of Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd."
The market regulator said that HFCL, its promoters and associated entities had paid Rs10 crore towards settlement of the case, as per the recommendation of a High-Powered Committee constituted by SEBI.
"Accordingly, the applicants, without admitting or denying the charges, have conveyed their acceptance of the aforesaid recommendations vide their letter dated 30 December 2009 and have remitted a sum of Rs10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crore only) towards settlement charges vide demand drafts, payable at Mumbai," the consent order said.
The HFCL case dates back to the 1999 to 2001 period of the Ketan Parekh scam. Mr Parekh, the main accused in the fraud, allegedly rigged share prices of ten companies, including Zee Telefilms and HFCL.
It is now common knowledge that Global Trust Bank (GTB), Zee Telefilms and HFCL were in cahoots with Mr Parekh and had all routed large sums of money to corporate entities connected with him. In 2001, SEBI had told the Joint Parliamentary Committee that Zee and HFCL had diverted Rs515 crore and Rs700 crore respectively to Mr Parekh.
After conducting investigations, SEBI, in 2004, sent show-cause notices to HFCL, its directors and associates. While the proceedings were in progress, on 31 May 2008 and 4 June 2008, HFCL proposed a settlement of the proceedings through a consent order. SEBI then constituted a high-powered committee which also recommended settling the issue if the applicants agreed to make payment of Rs10 crore towards settlement charges.
On 11 January 2010, the Delhi High Court also affirmed the terms of the settlement as recommended by the High-Powered Committee and approved by SEBI, following which the market regulator disposed proceedings against HFCL. (Read more about SEBI’s consent orders http://www.moneylife.in/article/3030.html and http://www.moneylife.in/article/2827.html
Amnesty International’s report says that the 8,000-strong community comprising largely of adivasis in Lanjigarh in Orissa has suffered violations of human rights over water and health, because of pollution and poor management of waste produced by the refinery
Alumina mining in Orissa is causing serious health and environmental hazards, a leading rights watch said on Tuesday, slamming the Indian government and mining major Vedanta Resources Plc for failing to properly inform indigenous communities about its impact, reports PTI.
According to a report released by Amnesty International, the 8,000-strong community comprising largely of adivasis in Lanjigarh in Orissa has suffered violations of human rights over water and health, because of pollution and poor management of waste produced by the refinery.
"Vedanta Aluminium Ltd's alumina refinery has led to water and air pollution, seriously undermining the quality of life and threatening the health of nearby communities, some of whom live only a few hundred yards from the refinery's boundary walls," the report said.
It also slammed the Union government for failing to obtain “free, prior and informed consent” of the Dongria Kondh tribe living in the thickly forested Niyamgiri Hills before approving the Vedanta project.
Vedanta, whose subsidiary operates the mine, meanwhile defended its operations, saying that the report is based on an “outdated document”, which was subjected to intense scrutiny by the Supreme Court.
It said the Supreme Court has already “reviewed, refined and endorsed the scrupulous approach manifested by Vedanta Resources in every aspect of the project's operation” in its August 2008 order.