NSE penalises Jet, IL&FS, Adanis for breach of listing norms
The National Stock Exchange (NSE) on Wednesday imposed fines and issued notices to 250 companies for not adhering to the Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR).
 
Among the companies penalised, were the grounded Jet Airways, subsidiary companies of the crisi-riddenn IL&FS and Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone (APSEZ, InterGlobe Aviation Ltd, the parent company of the largest airlines by market share, IndiGo, and several state owned entities.
 
"The National Stock Exchange (NSE) after monitoring the compliance of listing regulations for all its listed entities imposed fines and issued notices to non-compliant companies for the quarter ended March 31, 2019," NSE said in a statement.
 
The NSE cited a market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) circular in this regard, which says that gives it the power to "levy per day fines" and "freeze the holdings of the promoter and promoter group" if non-compliant listed entities fail to comply with the requirements of listing regulations and/or pay the fine levied within the stipulated period.
 
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

COMMENTS

Ramesh Poapt

2 months ago

minimum action by nse.

Banking Ombudsman Disposing of More Complaints Through Settlement; Issued Awards in Only 0.2% Cases in FY2017-18
The office of the Banking Ombudsman (BO) has disposed of more than 60% of the complaints through mutual settlement or agreement and has issued awards in only 0.2% or 148 cases out of the 83,532 maintainable cases, reveals a report from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
 
As per the report, during FY2017-18, the 21 offices of BO from across the country received 1.64 lakh complaints from bank customers. This ranges from  non-observance of fair practices code (22.1%), ATM and debit card issues (15.1%), credit card complaints (7.7%), failure to meet commitments (6.8%), and mobile and electronic banking (5.2%).
 
 
The BO also received complaints on issues relating to pension, levy of charges without notice, loans and advances, remittance, direct selling agencies (DSAs) and recovery agents and mis-selling, each accounting for 5% or less of the total complaints received.
 
"Although the office of BOs handled 28% more complaints in 2017-18, the disposal rate was 96.5% as against 92% in 2016-17. There was a marked increase in the number of complaints resolved by agreement or through mediation, which rose to 65.82% in 2017-18 from 42.43% during the previous year," the report says.
 
RBI says the scheme promotes settlement of complaints by agreement through conciliation or mediation by BOs. If the parties fail to arrive at an acceptable conclusion by agreement, the BO gives a decision or passes an award. 
 
 
However, out of the 83,532 maintainable cases, the BO issued awards in only 148 cases, out of which it was implemented in just 111 cases.
 
 
Consumers or lenders not happy with the BO award can file an appeal with the deputy governor in charge of the Consumer Education and Protection Department (CEPD) of the RBI, which is the appellate authority (AA). Due to a revision of the BO scheme, during FY2017-18, there was an eightfold increase in the number of appeals (125) compared with 15 recorded in the past year. 
 
Of these, 115 appeals were received from complainants who were aggrieved by the decision of the respective BOs whereas 10 were filed by the banks. The AA handled 132 appeals during the year, including seven appeals that were pending at the beginning of the year. Of these, 37 appeals were disposed of as on 30 June 2018, the report shows. 
 
The BO scheme is applicable to scheduled commercial banks, scheduled primary urban co-operative banks and the regional rural banks (RRBs), small finance banks and payment banks from across the country. The scheme is managed by RBI through 21 BO offices covering all states and union territories.
 
As per the revised scheme, there are no restrictions on the BO, in terms of the amount involved in the case. It is also empowered to award a compensation of up to Rs20 lakh for losses from deficiency in service. In addition, the ombudsman can give a compensation of Rs1 lakh to cover harassment and mental anguish, which was previously available only to credit card complaints. 
  
During FY2017-18, the BO received 1,63,590 complaints with almost 16.3% or 26,653 complaints received from the Delhi office. No wonder the north zone accounted for maximum number of complaints. However, east zone accounted only for 15% of the total complaints received by the BO.
 
According to the report, the number of customers filing complaints online at the BO is increasing significantly. During FY2017-18, 64% of the total complaints were filed through internet, of which 49% were through emails and the rest 15% were filed on the BO portal. 
 
 
During FY2017-18, the BO rejected the maximum number of cases (89% or 25114) for not being on the grounds specific to the scheme. From the rest of the complaints, majority or 8.27% (2,337) were rejected due to lack of ‘elaborate documentary and oral evidence’. However, since the revised BO scheme has allowed such rejected cases to be appealed from July 2017, there was an increase in appeals before the Appellate Authority. 
 
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

GLN Prasad

2 months ago

Don't worry be happy for the unity of the Banks, not even one bank maintains grievance redressal mechanism even in case of very serious violations by officials. An employer of security agency collected xerox copies of all his security guards in the state for ID purpose, got opening forms signed for getting account opening forms from all over the state, opened all these thousands of account at his HQ, linked to AADHAR and even swallowed the Gas subsidy of the security guards, without their knowledge. They do not have a mechanism to make a follow up with that Bank branch situated hundreds of miles away. The accounts were also used for encashing amounts during demonetization. When the poor security guard referred the matter to Ombudsman, the simple rejection of the application is that there was no deficiency of service by the bank. Another employer has debited the account of his employee's bank account and used the amount for a recovery towards a change of some bars in a safe his knowledge and consent. The learned Ombudsman rejected application stating that the issue of debiting account by Bank is between employer and employee, even after SC decision was enclosed to complain. Might is right always. Bankers are strange as they fear towards high-value clientele, and do not even care to respond to common depositors.

Deepak Narain

2 months ago

The institution of Banking Ombudsman is an impotent and useless entity. There has to be some superior authority to keep a watch on their responsiveness. The appellate body of PNB is a master of futility. The branches of PNB do not reply -much less act - to your mails irrespective of the number of reminders and we have no relief from anywhere. When you remind the appellate authority, they ask for such absurd information that we give up in disgust and leave our lot to God.

Similarly useless is the ombudsman of HDFC Bank. It acts as a post office only. It forwards our complaints and reminders to the defaulting branch with not doing anything for providing any relief.

GLN Prasad

2 months ago

Another ornamental, rehabilitation center, white elephant or a paper tiger. Now, I understand as to why none of the advocates guide the clients to go to Ombudsman. Next article should be the total amount of Govt. spent every year on this noble task, eye washing exercise. Shame or pride?

VASANT KULKARNI

2 months ago

EXCELLENT WORK BY ALL BOs.

Why Did RBI Seek Comments from SEBI for Granting NBFC Licence to Defaulting Promoter of RattanIndia Power?
As elaborated in our three parts series, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) indeed seems to have helped the promoter of a defaulting company to get a licence to start a non-banking finance company (NBFC) through the takeover route. The defaults of RattanIndia Power Ltd worth Rs12,000 crore were mentioned in the company's annual report for FY2014-15. Yet, rather than taking cognizance of the huge defaults of the promoter entity, the RBI sought comment from the market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on Rajiv Rattan, promoter of the company, reveals the reply received under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. So far both RBI and SEBI have kept mum on the issue. 
 
A note re-submitted by RBI’s department of non-banking supervision on 27 October 2016 states, “If approved, we may request SEBI to furnish whether any supervisory concerns are observed in the companies in which the proposed director Mr Rajiv Rattan is a director.”
 
The next note dated 9 November 2016 talks about giving prior approval for change in the management and control of Vikhyat Finlease and Trading Pvt Ltd by Mr Rattan and two others. 
 
Point 3 in this letter states: "Mr Rajiv Rattan (proposed director and shareholder) was found to be the director of RattanIndia Power Ltd and RattanIndia Infrastructure Ltd, which are regulated by SEBI. SEBI has informed that they have no adverse comments to offer against Mr Rajiv Rattan and the companies in which he is a director."
 
 
However, RattanIndia Power had already been found to have defaulted in repaying loans worth Rs12,000 crore and had already placed the defaults and the rescheduling of loans in its annual report for FY2014-15. 
 
In fact, in October 2016, a month before RBI issued the above mentioned note, CARE Ratings too had downgraded RattanIndia Power to ‘D’ after noticing the defaults. 
 
A look at the excerpts of the audit report below clearly reflects delays evident in FY14-15 itself. The amount rated with a default rating is Rs7,942 crore for RattanIndia Power and Rs4,240 crore for its subsidiary; aggregate to more than Rs12,000 crore on a consolidated basis.
 
 
The promoter of the RattanIndia Power sought RBI’s permission to acquire an existing NBFC (with marginal operations) and become its new promoter and director. RBI approved the acquisition of the NBFC in November 2016 when defaults amounting to Rs12,000 crore of debt in group entities were out there in the open. 
 
 
RBI, being a banking regulator should have known the defaults of RattanIndia Power, but seems to have overlooked them. Especially, the banking regulator should have taken a strong objection over continuous defaults in RattanIndia Power, and looked at the ‘fit & proper’ criteria of Mr Rattan, in continuation of his directorship and position as chief executive at the power company.
 
Vikhyat Finlease had submitted two letters on 18 January and 2 February 2016 respectively, seeking prior approval from the central bank. However, as per the office note from RBI, the NBFC did not meet the principal business criteria (PBC) and its financial assets were lower than 50% of its total assets. In addition, net owned fund (NOF) of Vikhyat Finlease was also just Rs46.71 lakh, the note says. 
 
This note also mentions the cancellation of a proposal by Vikhyat Finlease for change in control and management by acquisition of its share by a limited liability partnership (LLP firm). However, file notings by an assistant general manager (AGM) from RBI directs to ‘call the proposed acquirer for a discussion on the subject before writing anything to the company.”
 
 
Vikhyat Finlease and Trading had two directors, Saroj Jain with a stake of 99.72% and Manoj Kumar Thakur without any stake. Shailendra Singh held the balance 0.28% stake in Vikhyat Finlease but he was not director the company.  
 
On 26 April 2016, a letter was submitted to RBI seeking prior approval for change in management and control of Vikhyat Finlease citing inability of Ms Jain and Mr Thakur to run the company without adequate resources to meet the NOF requirements of the RBI. The letter proposed three new directors, Rajiv Rattan, Anjali Nashier and Ram Kumar. However, only two of them, namely Mr Rattan and Ms Nashier were shown to be holding 50% stake each in Vikhyat Finlease.
 
Again, on 30 May and 20 June 2016, Vikhyat Finlease submitted letters for prior approval for change in control of the company. Here also the RBI note dated 30 June 2016, asks to ‘call for required clarifications’ on the company’s principal business criteria (PBC) and NOF criteria. The note says, “Company is not meeting the PBC in 2016. Statutory auditor’s certificate (SAC) shows the company meeting the PBC, but balance sheet (of the company) is not cleared.”
 
The next office note from RBI dated 30 July 2016 says, “Company has submitted clarification regarding our queries. We may accept it.”
 
The RBI office note dated 29 September 2016 mentions the sudden change in Vikhyat Finlease’s NOF and an entry of Rs60 lakh in the balance sheet. “Sudden change in the share capital (in 2015, NOF-Rs46.71 lakh, in 2016-NOF Rs121.88 lakh and balance sheet shows that the issue of share worth Rs60.00 lakh), we may call for the details of Rs60 lakh amount.”
 
The note also points out that Ram Kumar was a proposed director but his name was not there in the board resolution submitted by Vikhyat Finlease. In addition, all proposed directors had submitted credit reports from CIBIL for FY2014-15, which the note says, should be the latest. 
 
The next note on 9 November 2016 states that the company’s application was found in order, and “we may, if approved, request chief general manager, New Delhi office (since the powers for dealing with such cases has been entrusted to the CGM) to grant approval for transfer of shares of the company…”
 
Based on recommendation from this note, on 16 November 2016, RBI allowed Vikhyat Finlease to change its control and management. 
 
Our emails sent to RBI and SEBI have remained unanswered till writing this story. We will update this story as and when we receive any reply from them.
 
You may also want to read…
 
 
 
 
 
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

Ramchandra Karve

2 months ago

Whether activists of Money Life Foundation have called for information under the Right to Information Act 2005 regarding present state of loan default by Rattan Steel.

B. KRISHNAN

2 months ago

The term "chowkidar chor" is more appropriate for RBI!

Ramchandra Karve

2 months ago

Amount of loan granted to the Defaulting NBFC should be recovered from the salaries and pensions of the concerned RBI Officials and disposal of their property. Action on the part of RBI Officials of granting licence to the defaulting NBFC also amounts to Gross Negligence on their part in the discharge of their duties. Ramchandra Karve Retired officer from Reserve Bank of India Mumbai

REPLY

AAR

In Reply to Ramchandra Karve 2 months ago

Who will do that? Almost all government agencies in India are corrupt and have no integrity. We need to go back to rule by Kings and Queens. Maybe Chola Kings or King Ashoka to rule India again.

priyanka

2 months ago

No values , shameless

Ramesh Poapt

2 months ago

OMG!!!

AAR

2 months ago

First time I approached Bank for a housing loan, I somehow felt hesitant to even request for it.
These Corporates are bold in getting 12000 crores loan and shamelessly defaulting on it.
We indeed need to appreciate their confidence level.

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)