Tuesday, October 21, 2014

மாவட்ட நீதிபதிகள் பணியிட மாற்றம்: ஐகோர்ட் உத்தரவு



சென்னை ஐகோர்ட் தலைமை பதிவாளர் பொன்.கலையரசன் வெளியிட்டுள்ள அறிவிக்கையில்,

’’சென்னை 14-வது கூடுதல் மாவட்ட (சி.பி.ஐ) கோர்ட்டு நீதிபதி கே.வெங்கடேஷ்சுவாமி, 13-வது கூடுதல் மாவட்ட (சி.பி.ஐ) கோர்ட்டு நீதிபதியாக நியமிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளார்.

 சென்னை சார்பு நீதிபதி வி.சோபனாதேவி மாவட்ட நீதிபதியாக பதவி உயர்வு பெற்றுள்ளார். எஸ்.மோகனகுமாரி, காஞ்சீபுரம் மாவட்ட கூடுதல் நீதிபதியாகவும், வி.சோபனாதேவி சென்னை 14-வது கூடுதல் சி.பி.ஐ. கோர்ட்டு நீதிபதியாகவும் நியமிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளனர். 

சென்னை முதலாவது கூடுதல் குடும்பநல கோர்ட்டு நீதிபதியாக வி.சாருஹாசினி, சென்னை 2-வது கூடுதல் குடும்பநல கோர்ட்டு நீதிபதியாக ஆர்.கலைமதி, 3-வது கூடுதல் குடும்பநல கோர்ட்டு நீதிபதியாக எஸ்.கோமதிஜெயம் ஆகியோர் நியமிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளனர்’’என்று கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது.

Happy Diwali !!



May You Be showered with
Happiness, Peace and Prosperity
in the coming Days !!

Happy Diwali !!!

Delhi HC stays shifting of DRT to Parliament Street



 

The High today stayed the shifting of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) from its current location in Jhandewalan here to a building in Street. 

A bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru in an interim order put on hold till October 27 the Centre's decision to shift the three benches of DRT from their current location, saying, "Let the tribunals function from their present place." 

"... The Union of to ensure that the tribunals are allowed to function from their current place. They be not shifted without sufficient arrangements being made at the new place," the court said. 

The court passed the order after the DRT Bar Association claimed that the new premises did not have proper parking facilities, places for lawyers and litigants to sit or any amenities. 

They also said that there will be a function in th next few days, and if DRT is moved to the new location it will create a chaos as there would be no place to park the vehicles and power and other facilities are also not fully functional. 

Presently the DRT is being operated from the basement of a building at the RSS Bharat Prakashan-owned Keshav Kunj in Jhandewalan for several years. 

The decision to shift the tribunal to a different location was taken after the RSS filed a suit for eviction, claiming they needed the property for their own offices. 

Earlier this year, the Bar Association was told that the government had decided to shift the DRT to the Jeevan Tara Building at Patel chowk on Parliament Street. 

The DRT was scheduled to be shifted to the Jeevan Tara offices by October 20 and was expected to start functioning from October 27.

SBI Chief Tries to Shift the Blame on NPAs


SBI, SBI Chief, Arundhati Bhattacharya, SBI chairperson Arundhati Bhattacharya

Money control :DEBASHIS BASU | 17/10/2014 04:43 PM |   

Blames lax regulations for high NPAs when the real cause is widespread corruption in public sector banks

The State Bank of India (SBI) chairperson Arundhati Bhattacharya, in an interview with Financial Times, has called for shake up in the regulatory system, as if SBI and its chairman is an outside to the same system.

In the interview, the SBI chief admitted that rates of bad and restructured assets will keep rising for “at least a couple more quarters”, despite having already hit roughly 10% of loans. 

But remarkably for the first time for a chairman of a government-owned bank, she has argued that India needs tougher rules for defaulters, as well as “a proper bankruptcy law to help get orderly resolution of [bad] assets”. “What we need is a little more teeth,” she was quoted while calling for firmer regulations to target indebted tycoons. 

There are three things to note about this new, sudden demand for teeth. 

1. No chairman of state-run lender has ever raised his or her voice about poor regulations that is failing to curb the ever-rising non-performing assets (NPAs).

2. SBI and other banks have never targeted defaulting corporate borrowers with determination to recover monies. Indian borrowers have always felt safe borrowing from the public sector banks knowing fully well that chairmen of these banks have no accountability. 

3. In fact, successive bank chairperson have passed the buck to the next person and retired with full benefits, even as defaults continued to hit the government-owned banks at every economic downturn.

4. The demand for “more teeth” is coming from the State Bank of India but not private sector banks because these banks have negligible bad debts.

5. This merely proves that it is not the recovery laws but lax credit appraisal and totally compromised top management is responsible for abnormally high bad debts in government banks.

Indeed, the same corrupt nexus between public sector banks and it's defaulting borrowers was responsible for band loans reaching 13% of advances in 2001-2002. In response, the government had created Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002 designed to help in the recoveries of bad loans. One of the key provisions of the Act is for banks to be able to auction the assets of defaulting borrowers. This law was supposed to wholly aid banks. 

Unfortunately, if the bank officials are corrupt and have lent money without adequate collateral, what auctions will they do? This is why spectacular defaults such as Deccan Chronicle and Kingfisher Airlines have led to no action against defaulters, despite the SARFAESI Act. In addition, SBI has been the biggest lender to Kingfisher. Have you heard of any action against any SBI official, including previous chairman, for what is obviously gross negligence in assessing Kingfisher’s creditworthiness and for not ensuring that the bank’s interests are covered?

In May, the All India Bank Employees' Association (AIBEA), while revealing wilful defaults worth Rs70,300 crore in 400 loan accounts in public sector banks (PSBs), has demanded a detailed probe in to the loan sanctioning and loans turning into bad assets. 

This is bad lending of epidemic proportions. If banks were not confident of the laws that would land them in this huge soup of bad loans, whom did they point this out to and why did they lend? No, these bad loans have only one root: corruption, something that Ms Bhattacharya does not want to talk about.

According to the bank employee's union, over the past seven years, there were fresh bad loans worth Rs4.95 lakh crore only in government banks, while during the same period, these lenders wrote off bad debts worth Rs1.4 lakh crore. Gross non-performing assets (NPAs) and bad loans in the PSBs have increased to Rs1.64 lakh crore as on 31 March 2013 from Rs39,000 crore as on 31 March 2008.

While the unions were demanding stern action against bank defaulters, not a single bank chairman supported it. Moneylife had asked the SBI chief three questions based on her FT interview. The questions were, did not SBI know that the laws were weak; did banks ever tell the RBI or the Finance Ministry about the problems and is SBI saying that the RBI has failed to act like responsible regulator?

Her office replied: "(the) Chairman in her interview had merely emphasized the need for tougher resolution mechanism to put a check on wilful defaulters. Additionally, she also said banks should work in tandem and more closely in consortiums, while lending only to projects that have government regulatory clearances in hand." It also said, "...to draw a link between the 3 questions that you have posed and the relevant interview is far-fetched."

The bank employee unions have been demanding fix responsibility on banks’ top brass for the loans that have turned bad, allow banks to share information on NPAs and wilful defaulters under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, and declare wilful loan default as a criminal offence. 

The fact is despite stringent credit appraisal process and committees to sanction loans, borrowers have siphoned off money from the banking system in connivance with bankers. Once this reaches large proportions that affect the functioning of the banks, the ministry of finance quietly steps in and washes the sins of the banks by recapitalizing them, even as chairman after chairman go scot free.

There is a reason for this perpetual lack of accountability of senior bank officials. Some chairmen are handpicked by ministry and finance minister for their ability to be pliant and sanction dirty loans. The Reserve Bank merely rubber-stamps this selection process. Who will go after the chairman when the MoF is involved and the RBI is hand-off? This is the root of bad loans in India, not lax regulations that Ms Bhattacharya tries to blame

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Full Text of Order of SC On Selvi J.Jayalalithaa's(Bail ) SLP cr


we suspend the sentence and direct that the petitioners, (i) Selvi J.Jayalalithaa, (ii) Tmt.N.Sasikala, (iii) Mr.V.N. Sudhakaran, and (iv) TMT. J.Elasvarasi be released on bail on executing a bond with two solvent sureties by each of them to the satisfaction of the 36th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (Spl. Court for Trial of Criminal Cases against Kum. Jayalalitha & Ors) at Bangalore. = IA No. 1/2014 in Crl.Appeal No. 835 of 2014 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore) J JAYALALITHAA Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DV AND AC, CHENNAI Respondent(s) (With office report) = 2014- Oct. Moth – http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/sr790014p-2014_10_17.pdf

we suspend
the sentence and direct that the
petitioners, 
(i) Selvi J.Jayalalithaa, 
(ii) Tmt.N.Sasikala, 
(iii) Mr.V.N. Sudhakaran,
and 
(iv) TMT. J.Elasvarasi be released on
bail on executing a bond with two solvent
sureties by each of them to the
satisfaction of the 36th Addl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge (Spl. Court for Trial of
Criminal Cases against Kum. Jayalalitha &
Ors) at Bangalore. 
1
ITEM NO.65 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7900/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
07/10/2014 in in IA No. 1/2014 in Crl.Appeal No. 835 of 2014
passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore)
J JAYALALITHAA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE DV AND AC, CHENNAI Respondent(s)
(With office report)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 7906-7908/2014
(With Office Report)
Date : 17/10/2014 These petitions were called on
for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Fali S. Nariman, Sr. Adv.
Mr. B. Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A Navaneetha Krishnan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Senthil, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Agrawal,Adv.
Ms. Meha Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. C Mani Shankar, Adv.
Mr. Rupesh Kumar,Adv.
Mr. A. Ashokan,Adv.
Mr. Raj Kamal, Adv.
Mr. Farz Khan, AdV.
For Respondent(s)/ Mr. Subramonium Swamy,
Intervenor(s) In-person
Ms. Roxy Subramanian, Adv.
Mr. Yatinder Choudhary, Adv.
2
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
After hearing Shri Fali S. Nariman,
Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel
for the petitioners and Shri Subramonium
Swamy, party-in-person and also the
complainant, for the present, we suspend
the sentence and direct that the
petitioners, (i) Selvi J.Jayalalithaa, (ii)
Tmt.N.Sasikala, (iii) Mr.V.N. Sudhakaran,
and (iv) TMT. J.Elasvarasi be released on
bail on executing a bond with two solvent
sureties by each of them to the
satisfaction of the 36th Addl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge
(Spl. Court for Trial of
Criminal Cases against Kum. Jayalalitha &
Ors) at Bangalore.
Call these matters on 18th December,
2014.
[ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod K
ulvi ]
Court Master Asstt. Registrar

Bombay HC issues notice to RBI on ballooning NPAs


FEXpress Aamir Khan | Mumbai |  October 17, 2014 1:38 am
The Bombay High Court has issued notice to the Reserve Bank of India in connection with a PIL which alleges that the non-performing assets (NPA) of nationalised banks swelled up from Rs 455 crore for the year ended March 2008 to Rs 9,190 crore in March 2012.
However, according to the RBI annual report, gross NPAs for public sector banks for FY 14 stood at 4.7 per cent of gross advances, or approximately Rs 2.8 lakh crore.
Justices AS Oka and GS Kulkarni gave the direction while acting on a PIL filed by activist Ketan Tirodkar, seeking directions to the RBI to register a case with the CBI to probe into the “fraudulent sanctions” leading to such huge NPAs. Once the borrower has failed to make interest or principal payments for 90 days, the bank loan is considered to be a NPA.


Relying on RTI replies obtained from the RBI, Tirodkar told the HC that there were over 140 cases of fraud of around Rs 15 crore each reported to the CBI by various banks between the years 2008 and 2012. However, he alleged, there was no information about whether or not cases of NPAs were registered with the investigating agency.
Nationalised banks have not complied with the Banking Regulation Act, 1969, which mandates periodical submission of audit reports to the RBI, alleged the petitioner.
“The Act is not complied with in order to suppress the NPA scenario and shield the culprit beneficiaries working in collusion with the banking authorities,” the PIL alleged.
The involvement of bank authorities commences at the stage when a would-be defaulter approaches the bank to extract a loan against a flimsy proposal / asset with the intention to dupe the bank in future, said the PIL.
While stating the “modus operandi” of banking authorities, the petitioner said they act in connivance with the future defaulters, decorate artificially the feasibility report, to sanction the proposal.
“The NPAs start accumulating at the end of the quarter which goes unreported to the RBI for a long time. Subsequently, such huge volumes of NPA, when they finally get reported to the RBI, have passed the stage of correction, and the RBI and the banks are forced to either write them off completely or to settle them for peanuts,” Tirodkar claimed.
While issuing the notice, the HC has posted the hearing on December 9.

The bail hearing — as it happened in the Supreme Court

The Hindu NEW DELHI, October 18, 2014
The bail hearing — as it happened in the Supreme Court
10.30 a.m.:  The First Court of the country presided over by a Bench led by Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu and Justices Madan B. Lokur and A.K. Sikri assembles for the day. The courtroom is jam-packed. Many lawyers from Tamil Nadu and AIADMK cadre present in the court and visitors’ gallery.
11.30 a.m.: Senior advocate Fali S. Nariman, for former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, enters the courtroom in his quiet fashion. He is accompanied by senior advocate KTS Tulsi, who represents two of the accused.
11.40 a.m.: Item 65 on the board is called. Arguments commence with Mr. Nariman driving right into the Karnataka High Court’s bail order. He says the High Court judge has committed an error. Says the High Court refers to the 2012 case law - State of Maharashtra Through CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai vs. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar - which deals with stay of conviction and not suspension of sentence.
11.42 a.m.: Mr. Nariman says using the 2012 case law to note that “corruption is a violation of human rights” in a limited question of suspension of sentence is wrong.
11.44 a.m.: Justice Dattu responds that the HC judge is merely saying that these are white-collar crimes. Mr. Nariman responds that a catena of Supreme Court decisions says “suspension of sentence when the criminal appeal is pending is a valuable right afforded to the accused, and is the norm.”
11.46 a.m.: Mr. Nariman picks up each judgment used by the Karnataka High Court to justify the refusal of suspension of sentence to counter that in all of them, the tenor of judicial reasoning is that suspension of sentence is the norm, and if denied will leave the exercise of criminal appeal “an exercise in futility” for the accused.
11.53 a.m.: Mr. Nariman argues that the Special Court convicted his client by “ ignoring a series of evidence on income and assessments placed before it to show that there is no case made out against her under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
12 noon: “But how many years did you take to complete the trial?” the Chief Justice interrupts Mr. Nariman.
“Far too many, My Lord,” Mr. Nariman concedes.
“If we pass the suspension of sentence now, you will take another two decades to finish the appeal,” Justice Dattu responds.
12.07 p.m.: Mr. Nariman says he will give an affidavit on behalf of his client that the appeal in the High Court will be completed in two months. There will be no delay on Ms. Jayalalithaa’s part.
“Should we not take into consideration that the conduct of the accused in the Special Court, in the High Court even in the Supreme Court... the case went on for years and years and years,” the CJI says.
12.09 p.m.: “This is a case in which the entire country has some considerations,” Mr. Nariman submits.
“We do not take all that into consideration. That does not matter for us,” the Chief Justice replies.
“I withdraw my comment,” Mr. Nariman pulls back.
12.10 p.m.: Mr. Nariman suggests to the Bench that “the lady can be confined to her house in Chennai for two months till the appeal is heard.” To this, the Chief Justice replies “we do not pass such unusual orders. Either we grant bail or not.” The Bench then goes into a huddle.
12.12 p.m.: Chief Justice Dattu asks within what time can Ms. Jayalalithaa file documents and be ready to fight her criminal appeal in the Karnataka High Court. Mr. Nariman replies “in six weeks.” He says the appeal hearing can be finished by February 2015. The Chief Justice says the court is willing to take his word for it and he does not have to file an affidavit. Mr. Tulsi submits he agrees with Mr. Nariman.
12.15 p.m.: Mr. Subramanian Swamy, the original complainant in the DA case, is given a chance to make his submissions. He says there has been sporadic violence in Tamil Nadu. Cartoons against the High Court judge have been put up.
He says the situation is “extraordinary” and that bail should not be granted. “She could have put a stop to the violence. One command from her was enough. But she has not. Her entire Cabinet is in Karnataka. Her Cabinet cannot take oath without crying,” Mr. Swamy submits.
Chief Justice Dattu turns to Mr. Nariman for an explanation. “All this will be communicated. I have already told them. A directive has to be indeed issued by her. They should maintain political morality,” Mr. Nariman assures the court.
12.20 p.m.: The Chief Justice tells Mr. Swamy: “An ‘extraordinary’ circumstance is when a person tries to run away to another country after conviction. Her party workers are unruly, what can she do? Is there anything to show that she ordered the violence?”
12.24 p.m.: “You prepare the paperbook [case documents and file] and keep it ready in two months. Then we will tell the High Court to hear the appeal in three months. But Mr. Nariman, if the paperbook is not ready in two months, we will not give you a day more,” the Chief Justice tells Mr. Nariman.
12.25 p.m.: A short order releasing the four accused on bail provided they present bond with solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial judge. The case to be listed on December 18.
“Keep the paperbook ready, Mr. Nariman on December 18. We will not give even one day’s extension [of bail],” the Chief Justice repeats amid the loud buzz of excitement from the crowd in the court.