Gammon India’s corporate debt restructuring cleared

Under the agreed CDR terms for Gammon, loan repayment will be stretched to 10 years and the company gets a moratorium of two years. Photo: Priyanka Parashar/ Mint

Live MInt : Didesh Unnikrishnan :Thu, Jul 04 2013. 11 58 PM IST

Loan repayment to be stretched to 10 years, Gammon India to get moratorium of two years on servicing it

Mumbai: Creditors have approved a Rs.13,500 crore corporate debt restructuring (CDR) package for Gammon India Ltd, offering the engineering and construction company a breather from a crisis brought on by slower economic growth and project delays, but adding to the growing pile of restructured loans at banks.

The CDR cell, a forum of lenders, has cleared the proposal and the process of loan restructuring will start soon, said two bankers familiar with the proposal. They declined to be named because of the sensitive nature of the matter.

Under the terms agreed for the CDR, the loan repayment will be stretched to 10 years and Gammon India will get a moratorium of two years on servicing it. The interest rate on the loan amount will be reduced by 1-2 percentage points to 11-12%.

“The loan recast will definitely aid an improvement in the operations of the company. Banks have approved this case, recognizing that there is a genuine need for the firm to avail this facility,” said a banker with a state-run bank, one of the creditors of Gammon India, who also did not want to be named.

Emails sent to officials at Gammon on Wednesday remained unanswered as of press time.

Gammon India and other infrastructure companies are struggling amid a slump in economic growth, which fell to a decade-low of 5% in the year ended March, as companies put new investments on hold. Infrastructure firms have also been battling a credit crunch amid high borrowing costs that made it difficult for many borrowers to repay debt.

Delays in securing mandatory government approvals have stalled project execution and impeded cash flows at several infrastructure firms. In April, according to finance ministry estimates, about 215 infrastructure projects were stalled, involving a collective outlay of over Rs.7 trillion.

Shares of Gammon India surged as much as 9.6% in intra-day trading on investor speculation about the loan recast. They closed up 3.481% at Rs.19.4 on the BSE on a day the benchmark Sensex gained 1.22% to 19,410.84 points.

In Gammon India’s case, out of the total debt amount, banks have a fund-based exposure of aboutRs.3,500 crore Fund exposure is the loan amount given by the bank to the company. Non-fund exposure is mainly in the form of performance guarantees or similar facilities

. Leading lenders to the company include ICICI Bank Ltd and Canara Bank Ltd. Banks will restructure the non-fund exposure of the company to the extent at which the facility has been used, said one of the officials cited above.

The individual exposure of each bank to Gammon India could not be ascertained as the banks declined to divulge details.

As of 31 May, Indian banks had loans outstanding of Rs.7.7 trillion to the infrastructure sector.

Under CDR, bankers typically extend the repayment period, cut lending rates and sometimes agree to forego a part of the money that’s owed to them. Banks may also offer a repayment holiday. A CDR is approved if at least 75% of the banks by value of the loan and 60% by number agree to proposal.

For the quarter ended 31 March, Gammon India reported a net loss of Rs.124.98 crore, largely because of some one-off items on its overseas operations, which included provisions made by the company in connection with investments and advances.

Gammon joins several companies that have recast loans. In the recent past, banks have restructured the loans of companies including Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd (about Rs.3,000 crore),Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd and Suzlon Energy Ltd.

Analysts said banks are going ahead with loan recasts despite the higher provision they need to make on such loans, failing which they would need to categorise these loans as non-performing assets (NPAs), which attract even higher provisions.

“Gammon restructuring was on expected lines. This is a good move for banks also as otherwise they would be forced to classify this as NPA,” said Hatim Broachwala, an analyst at Karvy Stock Broking Ltd.

On a cumulative basis, total restructured loans under the CDR mechanism have crossed Rs.2.29 trillion, or 4.4% of total loans given by Indian banks, as of March. The aggregate figure for bilateral loan recasts is not available, but bankers said such recasts may nearly equal the CDR figure. That would take the total restructured assets of the Indian banking industry to around Rs.4 trillion.

“It (Gammon CDR) seems to be in the ordinary course of things,” said Vaibhav Agrawal, vice-president, research at Angel Broking Ltd. “There are going to be more such cases at least in the next 1-2 years. Probably the peak of restructuring is over but things are not getting any better.”

Indian banks began large-scale restructuring in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

Indian banks have recast loans of companies across sectors such as textiles, real estate, power and gems and jewellery. About 10-15% of the restructured advances are estimated to have turned bad in the first cycle of loan recasts, but this time the proportion will be higher at around 15-20%, analysts said.

Govt banks writing off more loans than they recover

Vrishti Beniwal  |  New Delhi  July 5, 2013 Last Updated at 00:49 IST

FinMin identifies 17 lenders who wrote off Rs 11,000 cr loan
 vis-a0vis Rs 4,000 cr recovery in Q4

Public sector banks are writing off more loans than they recover, despite repeated advisories from the finance ministry. In the fourth quarter of the last financial year, of the 26 state-run lenders, as many as 17 banks had written off more loans than they recovered.

The write-off by these 17 banks in the January-March quarter of 2012-13 was higher than the write-off by all the 26 public sector banks in 2011-12.

According to data compiled by the finance ministry, 17 public sector banks, including big lenders like State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank, had written off loans worth Rs 10,777 crore in January-March quarter, while the recovery was Rs 4,172 crore during this period. During 2011-12, public sector banks wrote off loans worth Rs 2,300 crore, while the recovery was Rs 47,800 crore. The issue has alarmed the finance ministry, which in a note to the banks, highlighted the practice and reminded them the issue was raised as early as July 2006 and was reiterated in March this year. The issue was raised during a meeting of bankers with Finance Minister P Chidambaram on Wednesday. (ASSETS CONCERN)

To address the problem of rising non-performing assets (NPAs), Chidambaram had said banks “must recover higher than what they write-off in a year.” A loan is written off after making 100 per cent provision, which hits bank’s profitability. However, this also helps banks to show lower gross NPAs. Banks, particularly the government-run ones, are facing headwinds as far as asset quality is concerned amid economic slowdown. Not only gross and net NPAs of public sector banks are higher than that of their private sector counterparts but these banks also share higher burden on restructured loans.

The finance ministry has asked banks to initiate penal measures against wilful defaulters. The measures may include not granting additional facilities to such defaulters, debarring entrepreneurs/promoters of defaulting companies from institutional finance from floating new ventures for a period of five years.

The government also asked the banks to strengthen the recovery management and to have a board-approved policy on recovery. Banks have been asked to put in place an effective mechanism for information sharing for sanction of loans to new or existing borrowers.

In addition, banks were told to constitute a board-level committee for monitoring of recovery. Further, banks have been asked to lodge formal complaints against the auditors of such borrowers, if it is observed that the auditors were negligent or deficient in conducting the audit. Chidambaram has asked banks to focus on top 30 NPAs and take action against defaulters, as these account for bulk of the bad loans. Gross NPAs of public sector banks stood at 3.78 per cent of their advances at the end of March 2013 against 2.32 per cent at the end of March 2011. Gross NPAs of the country’s largest lender, State Bank of India, were at 5.17 per cent at March-end 2013.

The three legal options available to banks for resolution of NPAs/recovery of loans are: the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Sarfaesi Act, 2002), Debt Recovery Tribunals and Lok Adalats.

How one man’s refusal to abandon his dog changed a law

FP : Jul 4, 2013

It began with a circular issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs on April 8. Dog owners and lovers alike were stunned to realise that according to the new rules, only people who had spent at least two years abroad could return with their pets.

The new policy was aimed at pet breeders who bring in exotic breeds in inhumane conditions from abroad. But it turned out to hit all dog-owners.

But now, one Mumbaikar and his resolve to bring Zola, his beloved dachshund back to India with him, has single-handedly gotten the arbitrary rule scrapped, even putting his life on the line in the process.

According to the report, which appeared in today’s Mumbai Mirror, Partho Mondal is a senior executive with an Indian petrochemical giant who was posted in Tanzania for the last year and a half. When he was asked to return to India by doctors for health reasons, Mondal refused to leave Zola behind.

Mondal was diagnosed with a heart condition, and was advised to return home by his doctors for the bypass surgery and the resultant six month rest period. According to the Mumbai Mirror report, doctors told Mondal not to delay more than two weeks, but when he realised that Zola wouldn’t be able to join him, he refused to leave.

Mondal shot off letters to the vice-chairman of the Animal Welfare Board of India and Maneka Gandhi, pleading his case. Gandhi’s request to Mumbai customs was however turned down. Mondal wrote again to the two, threatening that he wouldn’t leave without Zola even if his life was at risk. The letter prompted Gandhi and the vice-president to move for an amendment in the April 8 circular, and a fresh circular allowing the “re-import” of pets was issued. Mondal could now return home with Zola.

“Zola has been with us for ten years and she is our daughter,” said Mondal to the Mumbai Mirror. “I couldn’t leave her…I made it clear I would rather die for wont of medical aid in Dar e Salaam than leave Zola behind.”

Read the full report in the Mumbai Mirror here :-

By Yogesh Sadhwani, Mumbai Mirror | Jul 4, 2013, 12.41 AM IST

How a Mumbaikar's refusal to abandon his beloved 10-year-old dachshund in Tanzania forced the Central Board of Excise and Customs to scrap a rule that allowed only those who had spent more than two years abroad to return to India with their pets.

If you own a pet and often travel abroad, you owe a big thanks to Partho Mondal. A big, chunky bone for his dog, Zola, would also be in order. 

Mondal, a senior executive with an Indian petrochemical giant posted in Tanzania, and Zola, his 10-year-old Dachshund, have forced the Central Board of Excise and C u s t o m s (CBEC) to amend its April 8 circular that allowed only those who had spent more than two years abroad to return to India with their pets. 

While the circular was aimed at professional breeders who brought dogs from foreign countries and turned them into pup-machines in India for a profit, it had become a headache for pet owners travelling abroad for shorter periods. 

With the new rule in place, Zola is now ready to fly back to India (right) Partho Mondal

Mondal, 54, in fact, put his life on the line to get the circular revised. 

Mondal, who was asked by doctors in India to return home for health reasons, refused to abandon Zola in Dar es Salaam, though he was returning just one-and-a-half years after being posted there. It was his spirited fight for Zola's rights that eventually forced the CBEC to amend it rules, bringing relief to thousands of pet owners. 

A Mumbaitte, Mondal moved to Dar es Salaam on an assignment in January 2012. However, in May this year he was diagnosed with a heart condition and flew down to India for treatment. After a failed angioplasty, the doctors advised a bypass. 

Realising that the bypass and the post-operative care would take at least six months, he decided to return to India for good. Doctors told him he should not delay the big operation beyond a fortnight. 

But as Mondal began working on his relocation, he came across an April 8, 2013 circular stating that only if a person has completed two years abroad would he be allowed bring his pet back to India. 

Before this circular, under the Baggage Rules of 1998, a passenger was allowed to bring back two pets as baggage and all that was required was a health certificate from the country of the pet's origin and its examination by the concerned quarantine officer. But the April 8 circular changed this. 

Mondal wrote to the customs detailing his plight and medical condition. He requested them to make an exception in his case. "There was no response to my letters. Sitting in a foreign country, I did not know what to do," Mondal said. 

Then he found out that the April 8 circular came into effect following representations by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and former member of Parliament Maneka Gandhi. 

He wrote to Dr Chinny Krishna, vice-chairman of AWBI and Gandhi requesting help. He attached his medical papers with the letter. 

Gandhi responded to Mondal's letter and wrote to the chief commissioner, customs, Mumbai, requesting that an exception be made for him. But her plea was turned down by the CBEC. By now, the 54-year-old heart patient in need of an urgent bypass had lost a month. 

Frustrated, he wrote to Gandhi and Dr Krishna in June, warning that he would not leave Tanzania without Zola even if that meant dying without receiving treatment for his ailing heart. 

"Zola has been with us for 10 years and she is our daughter. How can I leave my daughter all alone in a foreign country? I knew that I could not leave her with someone and go back months later to pick her up as once I leave I would have to surrender my work visa and re-entry would be impossible. Moreover, I don't know anyone who can take care of Zola here. I made it clear that I would rather die for want of medical aid in Dar e Salaam than leave Zola behind," said Mondal. 

This letter moved Gandhi and Dr Krishna, who the made a fresh representation to CBEC, this time seeking an amendment to the April 8 circular. CBEC agreed and a fresh circular --which allowed 'reimport' of pets -- was issued. 

The new circular states that 'reimport' of pets is allowed, provided the customs officials are able to establish that the animal was exported or sent from India to begin with. 

Dr Krishna said he was impressed by Mondal love for his pet. He explained that April 8 circular was brought in to put an end to breeders who would import animals on the pretext of bringing in pets. "There are enough breeds in the country. We do not need any new ones, especially the ones for whom the climate here is not conducive," said Dr Krishna. 

Mondal is ecstatic. "I am still running around for paper work and have booked tickets for July 10. I hope I am able to finish all the paperwork by then," he said. 

Animal welfare activists, who have been lobbying for the ban of rampant breeding, said the ban should be sensibly imposed. "We welcome the government's import ban, but it should not harm genuine pet owners," said Nilesh Bhanage, founder of PAWS, an animal welfare organisation.

Delhi High Court rejects plea against court Summer Vacation

The Hindu ;  PTI : Wednesday :3 july 2013

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a PIL seeking discontinuation of its summer vacation, saying that “most judges spend substantial part of vacation time in writing the judgments at their offices.”

The order was passed by a bench of Acting Chief Justice B.D. Ahmed and Justice Vibhu Bakhru, which turned down the PIL filed by Prakash India, a registered society, also seeking quashing of the 2013 circular which notified the vacation period from June 1 to 30.

The bench observed that the petitioner does not seems to be aware that how the Delhi High Court is working and said, “Most of the judges spend substantial part of vacation time in writing the judgments at their offices.”

The bench rejected the petitioner’s suggestion that either the judges should avail the vacation on rotation basis like the police officers or the high court should curtail the number of vacation days to 10 or 15 instead of 30 days.

“Unfortunately other organisations cannot be compared with court system. It is not practically feasible nor advisable to work in rotation. It might become absolutely chaotic. We don’t see any merit in this case and dismiss (it),” the bench said, adding that this high court has been maintaining 210 working days as per the central government communication.

Appearing in person, petitioner Suraj Prakash Manchanda, a retired bank officer, argued that there is huge pendency of cases across the country including over 60,000 in the Delhi High Court and the judges and lawyers should not go on vacation as litigants suffer.

“...In such circumstance, the judges and advocates who have sworn to uphold the rule of law and Constitution of India cannot afford to go on long vacations. This affects the sacred objective of rendering social justice to one and all in the country,” the plea said.

Keywords: court vacation, judiciary, vacation period, PIL, Delhi High Court

பயணியின், "லக்கேஜை' தொலைத்த விமான நிறுவனம் நஷ்ட ஈடு தர உத்தரவு

தினமலர் :புதுடில்லி:   ஜூலை 02,2013

இந்தியன் ஏர்லைன்ஸ் விமானத்தில் பயணித்த, பயணியின், "லக்கேஜ்' காணாமல் போனதால், அவருக்கு, 75 ஆயிரம் ரூபாய் நஷ்டஈடு வழங்கும்படி, டில்லி நுகர்வோர் கோர்ட் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது.

டில்லியை சேர்ந்தவர், நிசார் அகமது. இவர், 2006ல், இந்தியன் ஏர்லைன்ஸ் விமானத்தில், டில்லியிலிருந்து பாங்காக் சென்றார். பாங்காக் விமான நிலையத்தில் இறங்கிய போது, விமானத்தில் வைக்கப்பட்டிருந்த, அகமதின், லக்கேஜ் காணாமல் போனது. அதில், திருமணத்திற்கு தேவையான, விலை உயர்ந்த பொருட்கள் இருந்தன. 

இதுபற்றி, விமான நிறுவன அதிகாரிகளிடம், அகமது புகார் செய்தார். ஆனாலும், உரிய நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கப்படவில்லை. இதனால், அதிருப்தி அடைந்த அகமது, டில்லி தென்மேற்கு மாவட்ட நுகர்வோர் கோர்ட்டில், வழக்குத் தொடர்ந்தார். வழக்கை விசாரித்த கோர்ட், "அகமதின் லக்கேஜை தொலைத்த குற்றத்திற்காக, 40 ஆயிரம் ரூபாய், காணாமல் போன உடைமைகளுக்கு நஷ்ட ஈடாக, 35 ஆயிரம் ரூபாய் என, மொத்தம், 75 ஆயிரம் ரூபாயை, நஷ்டஈடாக, இந்தியன் ஏர்லைன்ஸ் நிறுவனம் வழங்க வேண்டும்' என, உத்தரவிட்டது.

கோர்ட்டுகள் அரசின் எதிரி என கூறுவது தவறு: நீதிபதி சதாசிவம்

தினமலர் :2 july 2013

புதுடில்லி : கோர்ட்டுகள் அரசின் எதிரி என கூறுவது தவறானது என சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் தலைமை நீதிபதியாக நியமிக்கப்பட்டுள்ள நீதிபதி சதாசிவம் தெரிவித்துள்ளார். நீதித்துறை, சட்டமன்றங்கள் மற்றும் அரசு நிர்வாகம் ஆகியவற்றிற்கு இடையேயான உறவு எதிரானது அல்ல எனவும், இவை மூன்றும் அரசியலமைப்பின் 3 அங்கங்களாக ஒன்றினைத் தொடர்ந்து மற்றொன்று இயங்கி வருவதாகவும் அவர் தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

தமிழகத்தைச் சேர்ந்த நீதிபதி சதாசிவம், சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் தலைமை நீதிபதியாக கடந்த வாரம் நியமிக்கப்பட்டார். ஜூலை 19ம் தேதியன்று தலைமை நீதிபதியாக பதவியேற்க உள்ள நிலையில் செய்தியாளர்களுக்கு அளித்த பேட்டியில், நீதித்துறைக்கு எதிராக கூறப்பட்டு வரும் கருத்துக்கள் குறித்து பேசினார். அப்போது அவர் கூறியதாவது : நீதித்துறை ஊழல்களுக்கு அப்பாற்பட்டது என நான் கூறவில்லை; அதே சமயம் மற்ற துறைகளுடன் ஒப்பிடுகையில் நீதித்துறையில் குறைவாகவே உள்ளது; அவை மிகவும் அரிதாக நடக்கக் கூடிய செயல்கள்; அவை சரிசெய்யப்பட்டு வருகின்றன; நீதித்துறை உறுப்பினர்கள் மீது ஊழல் புகார்கள் வரும் பட்சத்தில் உரிய நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கப்படும்; அவ்வாறு நிரூபிக்கப்படும் குற்றங்களுக்கு ஐகோர்ட் தலைமை நீதிபதிகளால் நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கப்படும்; ஒவ்வ‌ொரு ஐகோர்ட்டிலும் லஞ்ச ஒழிப்பு துறை அதிகாரிகள் செயல்பட்டு வருகின்றனர்; அரசின் நிர்வாக நடவடிக்கைகளில் கோர்ட்டோ அல்லது நீதிபதியோ தலையிட முடியாது; அதே போல் கோர்ட் செயல்பாடுகளை அரசால் தடுக்கவோ, தலையிடவோ முடியாது; இருப்பினும் தேவைப்படும் பட்சத்தில் அரசின் செல்பாடுகள் குறித்து கோர்ட் தனது கருத்தை கூற வேண்டிய நிலை ஏற்படுகிறது; தேவையற்ற சமயத்தில் கோர்ட் அரசு குறித்து கருத்து தெரிவிக்காது; கோர்ட்கள் அரசின் எதிரி என கூறப்படுவது தவறு; எங்களின் கடமையை தான் நாங்கள் செய்கிறோம்.இவ்வாறு சதாசிவம் தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

நீதித்துறை கவுன்சிலின் வழிகாட்டுதல் சரியானதாக, தேவையானதாக இருந்தால் மட்டுமே அதனை நீதிபதி ஏற்க முடியும்; மற்றபடி நீதித்துறை கவுன்சிலின் முடிவு நீதிபதியின் முடிவாக இருக்காது; பார்லிமென்ட் அதிகாரத்தில் இருக்கும் போது மாநிலங்களின் ஒரு குறிப்பிட்ட விவகாரம் அல்லது அது தொடர்பாக விவகாரத்தில் கோர்ட் தலையிட முடியும்; பார்லிமென்ட் அதிகாரத்தில் இல்லாத சமயத்தில் கோர்ட் வழிகாட்ட முடியும்; ஊழல் வழக்குகளை பொருத்த வரை கடந்த 5 ஆண்டுகளில் அவற்றின் விசாரணை துரிதப்படுத்தப்பட்டு வருகிறது; அது குறித்து அரசு நடவடிக்கை மற்றும் விளக்கம் அளிக்க போதி அவகாசம் அளிக்கப்படும்; அது குறித்து கோர்ட், வரையரைக்கு உட்பட்டு உத்தரவு பிறப்பிக்க முடியும்; பின்னர் அவ்வழக்குகள் விசாரணை கோர்ட்டின் நடத்தப்பட்டு, பின்னர் ஐகோர்ட் வசமும், இறுதியாக சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட்டிற்கும் கொண்டு செல்லப்படும் இந்த முறைகள் தீவிரமாக கடைபிடிக்கப்பட்டு வருகிறது; குற்றத்தின் அடிப்படையிலேயே ஜாமின் அளிப்பதும், மறுக்கப்படுவதும் முடிவு செய்யப்படுகிறது; தகவல் அறியும் உரிமை சட்டத்தின் கீழ் அனைத்து விபரங்களையும் அளிப்பது தவறு அல்ல; அது நீதித்துறையின் ஒரு பிரிவு ஆகும். இவ்வாறு நீதிபதி சதாசிவம் தனது பேட்டியில் தெரிவித்துள்ளார். 

Justice Sathasivam first judge from Tamil Nadu to become CJI

Chief Justice of India-designate P. Sathasivam in New Delhi on Saturday. Photo: V. Sudershan

J Venkatesan : New delhi: 29 June 2013

He will be sworn in on July 19 as 40th CJI

President Pranab Mukherjee on Saturday appointed Justice P. Sathasivam, seniormost judge of the Supreme Court, the 40th Chief Justice of India.

He succeeds Altamas Kabir, who retires on July 18, and will have a brief tenure of about nine months.

Justice Sathasivam, 64, is the first judge from Tamil Nadu to become the CJI. Justice M. Patanjali Sastri, who served as CJI from November 1951 to January 1954, represented the undivided Madras Presidency.

Justice Sathasivam never served as Chief Justice of a High Court as he was elevated directly to the Supreme Court on August 21, 2007, when he was serving as a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Hailing from Kadappanallur village, Bhavani taluk in Erode district of Tamil Nadu, Justice Sathasivam belonged to an agricultural family. He was the first graduate in his family and the first law graduate in his village. He was appointed a permanent judge of the Madras High Court on January 8, 1996. As a High Court judge, though he handled all types of cases, he disposed of more cases in service, labour and accident claim matters. On April 20, 2007, he was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

He will be sworn in as CJI on July 19, 2013. He is due to retire on April 26, 2014.

As a Supreme Court judge, Justice Sathasivam has delivered some landmark judgments on matters of national importance which include Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. vs. Reliance Industries Limited wherein he emphasised the use of natural resources through public sector undertakings. He observed that “in a national democracy like ours, the national assets belong to the people” and “the government owns such assets for the purposes of developing them in the interests of the people.”

In Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh vs. Union of India case, he dealt with the triple murder case of Australian Christian missionary Graham Stuart Staines and his two minor sons. This judgment concluded with the hope that Mahatma Gandhi’s vision of religion playing a positive role in bringing India’s numerous religions and communities into an integrated prosperous nation be realised by way of equal respect for all religions.

In another valiant pronouncement in Md. Khalil Chisti vs. State of Rajasthan, he set aside the Pakistani national’s conviction under Section 302 IPC and allowed him to go back to his native country.

In the Mayawati vs. Union of India case, he held that the Central Bureau of Investigation exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging FIR of disproportionate assets against Mayawati in the Taj Corridor matter and the same was quashed as being illegal.

In a number of judgments, he cautioned the courts against awarding lesser sentence in crimes against women and children and showing undue sympathy towards the accused by altering the sentence to the extent of period already undergone.

In the Mumbai blasts case, Justice Sathasivam convicted Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt to five years’ imprisonment under the Arms Act and he was asked to serve out the remaining sentence.

As executive chairman, National Legal Services Authority, he visited several States and created awareness on people’s rights and entitlement. He inaugurated several legal literacy camps in rural areas, schools and colleges.

Keywords: P. Sathasivam, Chief Justice of India appointment, Altamas Kabir