GE Vahanvati, former attorney general, dies aged 65

GE Vahanvati, who died of a heart attack, was suffering from a lung infection for some time and was admitted to a Mumbai hospital. Photo: Mint

Live Mint PTI 3 Sep 2014

He had resigned on 27 May after the BJP government headed by Narendra Modi assumed power at the Centre

New Delhi: Former attorney general of India, Goolam Essaji Vahanvati, died in Mumbai on Tuesday of a heart attack after a long and prolific career in law that had its share of controversy. He was 65.

Before becoming the top law officer of the country, Vahanvati served as the solicitor general; he was earlier advocate general for the state of Maharashtra.

“In his demise, India has lost an eminent legal luminary, a dedicated public servant and a very decent human being,” former prime minister Manmohan Singh said in a statement. It was during Singh’s term that Vahanvati, the first Muslim to become India’s attorney general, attracted controversy.

Former telecom secretary Siddharth Behura, one of the accused in the case related to irregularities in the allocation of 2G spectrum and licences, accused him of giving false statements to disassociate himself from the controversial
“first come, first served” policy adopted for granting the licences. Vahanvati was cleared of allegations by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

In 2013, another controversy surfaced when Communist Party of India (CPI) leader Gurudas Dasgupta accused Vahanvati of failing to disclose a foreign bank account he had allegedly opened in Singapore, noting that as attorney general he represented the government in cases related to retrieval of black money. Vahanvati served a legal notice on Dasgupta, which was followed by the latter submitting a privilege notice against the then attorney general for seeking to obstruct his performance as member of parliament.

On Tuesday, legal associates recalled Vahanvati’s contribution to law rather than the controversies associated with him.

“He stood apart from other lawyers. He was an original thinker and as a law officer, he worked so hard keeping the government’s interest (in mind),” saidMohan Parasaran, who was solicitor general when Vahanvati was attorney general. “We all expected that he’d be back in private practice now. This loss is very great to the legal community.”

Lawyer Gopal Subramaniam said that it was a “great personal loss” for him. “He was an outstanding lawyer, very immaculate and very disciplined. The legal profession has lost an eminent figure.” he added.

Vahanvati is survived by his wife and a son.

PTI and Mint’s Shauvik Ghosh contributed to this story.

Goolam Vahanvati passes away after heart attack

The previous government’s attorney general Goolam Essaji Vahanvati passed away earlier today after a “massive cardiac arrest”, reported the Times of India, aged 65 years.

Vahanvati was the first Muslim to become attorney general of India, when he became the Congress-led government’s most senior law officer from 2009 until the BJP’s election win in 2014.

He was designated as a senior advocate in 1990, became advocate general of Maharashtra in 1999 and solicitor general in 2004.

He is survived by his wife, daughter and his son, Essaji Vahanvati, who is a partner at AZB & Partners Mumbai.

Banks' capital adequacy ratio at six-year low, hit by rising NPAs

B S Nupur Anand & Manojit Saha  |  Mumbai  

September 3, 2014 Last Updated at 00:56 IST

PSU banks worst hit with average CAR falling to 10.67% at end of June quarter vs 11.18% in March 2014

With a rise in non-performing assets exerting pressure on their profitability, Indian banks’ capital adequacy ratio (CAR) has fallen in the aftermath of the global economic slowdown of 2008 — to 13 per cent as of March 2014 from 13.88 per cent a year earlier, according to data compiled by the Reserve Bank of India. The ratio — a measure of banks’  capital to their risk — was 13.01 per cent as of March 2008.

Public-sector banks have been the worst hit, with their average capital adequacy ratio falling to 10.67 per cent as of the quarter ended June, compared with 11.18 per cent in March.

The situation is worrisome, as bad loans continue to mount amid a slowing economy, where interest rates have stayed elevated. Gross non-performing assets (NPAs) of public-sector banks increased to 4.1 per cent as of the end of March from 3.6 per cent a year ago. Their net NPA as a proportion of net advances were 2.2 per cent, compared with 1.7 per during the same period a year earlier.

“The obvious choice would be getting rid of the NPAs, which necessitate steep provisioning and prevent new credit growth. But that has not been easy. If the excess statutory liquidity ratio (SLR) — the amount commercial banks are required to maintain in the form of gold or government bonds — is converted into loans as business picks up, the risk weights will further shift from government securities to corporate bonds, making the capital adequacy ratio look even worse,” said Shinjini Kumar, leader for banking and capital markets at PricewaterhouseCoopers India.

Banks are sitting on a pile of restructured assets, with the ratio of recast assets to gross advances standing at 5.9 per cent as of the end of March, compared with 5.8 per cent a year ago. Public-sector banks account for 92 per cent of the sector’s total restructured advances.

Also, public-sector banks will need additional capital to comply with theBasel-III norms. According to government estimates, state-run banks would require Rs 2.4 lakh crore of equity capital by 2018 to meet these norms. The new norms, implemented in phases in India from April 1, 2013, will be fully implemented by March 2019.

Besides, the present government is yet to allocate fresh funds for infusion in public-sector banks this financial year which has compounded these lenders’ woes. P Chidambaram, finance minister in the previous government, had in the interim budget allocated Rs 11,200 crore for capital infusion and the state-run banks were expecting the finance minister to announce additional capital infusion in the Union Budget

These banks are now planning to raise funds from the market through qualified institutional placements/follow-on public offers.

Punjab National Bank Executive Director Ram Sangapure believes raising capital will be comparatively easy now, given that the economy is showing signs of improvement and the markets are bouncing back. “Apart from this, the NPA situation has stabilised a little and all banks are working towards it. With that in place, it will free up more capital and, probably, make the capital adequacy ratio situation better.”

But Kumar says it might not be possible for all banks to raise capital smoothly, despite better sentiment and markets.

“Banks will want to access fresh capital for Basel implementation, supporting provisions and growth and dealing with the new restructuring regime of no forbearance. Some might be able to access capital at reasonable costs, but others who might not would face a worse situation,” Kumar said.

Section 138 of the NI Act

Section 138 of the NI Act – territorial jurisdiction- where cheques were drawn – cheques were drawn on Axis Bank, Bangalore and presented at Standard Chartered Bank, Bangalore – Statutory notice issued at New Delhi – High court held infavour of complainant – Apex court held that It is in these circumstances that we allow the Appeal, as Courts at Gurgaon do not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act solely because, on the instructions of the Respondent, a legal notice of demand has emanated from that city. The Complaint be returned to the Complainant/Respondent for refilling in the appropriate Court at Bangalore, Karnataka. As mentioned in Dashrath Rupsingh, if the Complaint is re-filed in the appropriate Court in Bangalore within 30 days, it shall be deemed to have been filed within limitation.= CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1771 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 7653 of 2013] SHIVGIRI ASSOCIATES & ORS. …..Appellants Vs. METSO MINERAL (INDIA) PVT.LTD. …..Respondent = 2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41832

POSTED BY ADVMOHAN ⋅ AUGUST 31, 2014 ⋅ 

FILED UNDER  BANGALORE, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

Section  138  of  the  NI  Act – territorial jurisdiction- where cheques were drawn – cheques were drawn on Axis Bank, Bangalore and presented at Standard Chartered Bank, Bangalore – Statutory notice issued at New Delhi – High court held infavour of complainant – Apex court held that It is in these circumstances that we allow the Appeal,  as  Courts  at Gurgaon do not possess territorial jurisdiction  to  entertain  the  present proceedings under  Section  138  of  the  NI  Act  solely  because,  on  the instructions of the Respondent, a legal notice of demand has  emanated  from that city.  The Complaint be  returned  to  the  Complainant/Respondent  for

refilling in the appropriate Court at Bangalore, Karnataka.    As  mentioned in Dashrath Rupsingh, if the Complaint is re-filed in the appropriate  Court in Bangalore within 30 days, it shall be deemed to have  been  filed  within limitation.=

In the case in hand, the  dishonoured  cheques  were  drawn  on  the

Appellant’s  Bank,  namely,  Axis   Bank,   Bangalore.    Subsequently,   on

presentation of the cheques for encashment by  the  Respondent  through  its

Bankers, namely, Standard Chartered Bank, Bangalore, they were  dishonoured.

It is interesting to note, even though it may not  be  relevant  for  the

present considerations, that the Respondent has filed a  suit  for  recovery

of money in New Delhi, repeatedly  reiterating  that  the  cause  of  action

arose solely and squarely in New Delhi.=

It is in these circumstances that we allow the Appeal,  as  Courts  at

Gurgaon do not possess territorial jurisdiction  to  entertain  the  present

proceedings under  Section  138  of  the  NI  Act  solely  because,  on  the

instructions of the Respondent, a legal notice of demand has  emanated  from

that city.  The Complaint be  returned  to  the  Complainant/Respondent  for

refilling in the appropriate Court at Bangalore, Karnataka.    As  mentioned

in Dashrath Rupsingh, if the Complaint is re-filed in the appropriate  Court

in Bangalore within 30 days, it shall be deemed to have  been  filed  within

limitation.

2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41832

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1771 OF 2014
[Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 7653 of 2013]

SHIVGIRI ASSOCIATES & ORS. …..Appellants

Vs.

METSO MINERAL (INDIA) PVT.LTD. …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1 Leave granted.
2 This Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana holding that since the notice as contemplated in
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI
Act’), had been dispatched from Gurgaon, Haryana and additionally, a
response thereto was dispatched to and received at Gurgaon, Courts at
Gurgaon possessed jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint. In
the impugned Judgment, several precedents have been mentioned and decisions
of this Court, namely, K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC
510 and Harman Electronics Private Limited v. National Panasonic India
Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 720 have been analysed and discussed. We
need not dilate on this issue beyond mentioning and applying the recent
decision dated 01.08.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.2287 of 2009 titled
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharasthra. In view of the
deliberations in Dashrath Rupsingh, the Appeal is allowed. It is no
longer arguable that the issuance of the notice has relevance to the
question of criminal territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the NI
Act. In the case in hand, the dishonoured cheques were drawn on the
Appellant’s Bank, namely, Axis Bank, Bangalore. Subsequently, on
presentation of the cheques for encashment by the Respondent through its
Bankers, namely, Standard Chartered Bank, Bangalore, they were dishonoured.
It is interesting to note, even though it may not be relevant for the
present considerations, that the Respondent has filed a suit for recovery
of money in New Delhi, repeatedly reiterating that the cause of action
arose solely and squarely in New Delhi.
3 It appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Special
Court), District Gurgaon, Haryana, on 14.6.2010 issued Summons to the
Appellant. The Appellant thereupon approached the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana at Chandigarh, which passed the impugned order. On 23.9.2013,
this Court issued notice and also ordered that proceedings before the Trial
Court shall remain stayed. It is evident, therefore, that evidence, post-
summoning, has not been recorded.
4 It is in these circumstances that we allow the Appeal, as Courts at
Gurgaon do not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present
proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act solely because, on the
instructions of the Respondent, a legal notice of demand has emanated from
that city. The Complaint be returned to the Complainant/Respondent for
refilling in the appropriate Court at Bangalore, Karnataka. As mentioned
in Dashrath Rupsingh, if the Complaint is re-filed in the appropriate Court
in Bangalore within 30 days, it shall be deemed to have been filed within
limitation. The interim orders stand recalled, accordingly.
5 The parties shall bear their respective costs.

……………………………………………….J.
[T.S. THAKUR]

……………………………………………….J.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]
New Delhi;
August 20, 2014.

CBI arrests ROC, Chennai in bribery case

BS Reporter  |  Chennai  

August 26, 2014 Last Updated at 20:39 IST

Rs 10 lakh bribe taken from Chettinadu group chief; CBI hints at internal rivalry in group for taking control

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has arrested Manuneethi Cholan, Registrar of Companies in Chennai, for accepting Rs 10 lakh bribe from prominent industrialist M A M Ramaswamy.

In a statement, CBI said that reliable information was received that Cholan had demanded Rs 10 lakh as illegal gratification from Ramaswamy who is Chairman of the Chettinadu Group of Companies. The statement also revealed that there was an attempt by a rival group within the management to take control over the Chettinadu Group during the annual general meeting to be held on August 27 in Chennai.

Cholan, according to CBI, demanded the illegal gratification for not approving the decision that was going to be taken at the AGM.

CBI also said the vehicle in which Cholan was travelling immediately after collection of the money was intercepted and a surprise check was conducted in the car and the bribe amount accepted by Cholan was seized.

The Honda City Sedan car in which the accused was travelling was also seized. Searches were conducted at the residence an offices of Cholan and at the office at Chettinad House in the city. Several incriminating documents and a computer hard disc were seized.

Further, an amount of Rs 20 lakh was seized from the residence of Cholan. The searches are still continuing. Cholan is being produced before the special judge court for CBI cases.

Phone calls made to Chettinad Group and Ramaswamy’s son and Chettinad Group’s Head and Managing Director M A M R Muthiah went unanswered.

Local media had come out with unconfirmed reports that Ramaswamy filed a complaint against “some family member” in a local police station stating that his life was in danger and someone was watching his house. The information could not be verified.

Ramaswamy is known to be the richest Chettiar, one of the richest communities in the country, on an individual basis and also known as Chettinad Arasar (King) and he has also been the Sheriff of Chennai for two terms. His grandfather was the the Rajah of Chettinad. In 2012, Forbes listed him as the 88th richest person in India with a net worth of $650 million.

The Chettinad Group has over 15 companies, including listed Chettinad Cement, and others are engaged in manufacturing (granites, silica and quartz), services (coal handling and engineering), trading, IT, wind farm and plantations.

Ramaswamy, the horse-racer who entered the Guinness Book by winning more than 300 Classic Races, today owns approximately 1,000 horses. The Chettinad Palace in the city, in which MAM lives, is located on a 70 acre area.

CBI court rejects bail plea of Registrar of Companies, Chennai

BS Reporter  |  Chennai  

September 1, 2014 Last Updated at 16:13 IST

The RoC who is an accused in a bribery case will be sent to CBI custody for three days

A CBI Court here dismissed the bail plea of the Registrar of Companies, Chennai, who was arrested for taking bribe of Rs 10 lakh from the industrialist M A M Ramasamy of Chettinad Group. The Court also allowed the CBI to take the Registrar M Manu Neethi Cholan, in its custody from September 3rd afternoon, for three days.

It may be noted that on August 28 when the bail plea came up for hearing the CBI  requested the Court that the agency needs Cholan in custody for further investigation. It also said that the CBI officials arrested Cholan along with Rs 10 lakh and another Rs 40,000 was recovered from the car he was traveling. Further, on search conducted in his office and residence, the agency recovered Rs 24.81 lakh along with several title deeds and immovable assets in his name and his relatives' names.

In a statement on Tuesday, the CBI said that reliable information was received that Cholan had demanded Rs 10 lakh as illegal gratification from Ramaswamy, the chairman of the Chettinad Group of Companies. The statement also revealed that there was an attempt by a rival group within the management to take control over the Chettinad Group during the AGM.

Cholan, according to CBI, demanded the illegal gratification for not approving the decision that was going to be taken at the AGM.

Ramaswamy is known to be the richest Chettiar, one of the richest trading communities in the country, on an individual basis and he has also been the Sheriff of Chennai for two terms. His grandfather was the the Rajah of Chettinad. In 2012, Forbes listed him as the 88th richest person in India with a net worth of $650 million.

The Chettinad Group has over 15 companies, including the listed Chettinad Cement. The group’s other interests include cement, power, textile, health care, education, logistics, coal terminals, construction, plantations, and others.

United Bank of India declares Kingfisher Airlines wilful defaulter

B S Somasroy Chakraborty  |  Mumbai  

September 1, 2014 Last Updated at 12:09 IS
T

The classification indicates the besieged airline has defaulted on repayments despite having the funds to do so

 The United Bank of India on Monday declared the groundedKingfisher Airlines and chairman Vijay Mallya a so-called 'wilful defaulter', making it the first bak to do so.

"We have declared Kingfisher Airlines, Vijay Mallya and a few other directors of the airline company as wilful defaulters," Deepak Narang, executive director of UBI, toldBusiness Standard.

The move comes after the Calcutta High Court last week dismissed the grounded airline company's plea against the bank. Kingfisher Airlines had moved the court after the bank identified it as a wilful defaulter and asked Mallya to appear before its grievance redressal panel.

 

UBI is one of the many lenders to Kingfisher Airlines and has an exposure of about Rs 400 crore to the embattled airline.

According to Reserve Bank of India (RBI) norms, a 'wilful default' is said to have occurred when an entity defaults in its payment obligations to lenders even if it has the capacity to pay and doesn’t use the funds for which the loan was availed, or diverts such funds. If the borrower uses short-term working capital funds for long-term purposes not in conformity with the terms of the sanction or deploys the borrowed funds for creation of assets other than those for which the loan was sanctioned, it is construed as diversion or siphoning of funds.

List of company Vijay Mallya is on board as chairman/director
Company Name	Designation	Year Ended
Bayer Crop Sci.	Chairman	201403
Sanofi India	Chairman	201312
Mangalore Chem.	Chairman	201403
U B Holdings	Chairman	201303
United Breweries	Chairman	201303
KF Airlines	Chairman & Managing Director	201303
Shaw Wallace	Chairman	200803
Herbertsons	Chairman	200503
Shaw Wallace Dis	Chairman	200503
Shaw Wallace Fin	Chairman	200503
McDowell & Co	Chairman	200003
Asian Age(South)	Chairman	200003
Source: Capitaline

Kingfisher Airlines is the leading company in a list of defaulters compiled by the finance ministry. The list also has Winsome Diamond (Rs 3,243 crore), Electrotherm India (Rs 2,653 crore), Corporate Power (Rs 2,487 crore) and Sterling Biotech (Rs 2,031 crore).

Separately, government-owned banks have been told to crack the whip on defaulters, and to recover dues from the top 50 as a first step. The ministry plans to make the rules regarding wilful defaulters more stringent, so that criminal charges can be pressed against such entities.

The ministry has proposed that a promoter or a board member of an entity classified as a wilful defaulter be barred from becoming a director in any other company. It had also been proposed that passports of such people be impounded, bankers said.

Timeline

• May, 2014: United Bank of India slaps wilful defaulter notice on Kingfisher Airlines, Vijay Mallya
• July, 2014: Kingfisher Airlines moves Calcutta High Court challenging United Bank of India's notice
• August, 2014: Calcutta High Court dismisses Kingfisher Airlines' appeal against United Bank of India
• September, 2014: United Bank of India declares Kingfisher Airlines, its chairman Vijay Mallya and other directors as wilful defaulters for non-payment of dues estimated at around Rs 400 crore