RBI's CAB's E-Portal for ICT Based Financial Inclusion Launched

Press Release No : 2007-2008/829 Dated 20.12.2007: Reserve Bank of India has formally launched an e-portal on information and communication technology (ICT) enabled financial inclusion efforts of banks. The e-portal is envisaged to be a platform for sharing of knowledge and experience of banks to harness the power of information and communication technology (ICT) for reaching out to the unbanked population and, therefore, may have the potential to aid in leapfrogging the extension of formal financial services to the hitherto unserved population.

Manupatra Legal Database
Manupatra Round up

SEBI- SEBI Proposes Simplification of Primary Issuance Process for Corporate Bonds

PR No.03/2008 dated 03.01.2008: SEBI has proposed simplification of the primary debt market issuance process. The Consultative Paper on "Draft SEBI (Issue and Listing of Debt Securities) Regulations, 2008" proposes to simplify the primary debt market issuance process with a view to developing a vibrant, dynamic and transparent corporate debt market in the country. Process simplified is expected to make primary debt issuance cost effective and less time consuming.
The paper emphasizes that due diligence, proper disclosures and credit rating will be key elements of corporate debt issuances, which will be ensured by SEBI mainly through certifications issued by the merchant bankers. Thus, enhanced responsibilities to merchant bankers for exercising due diligence and issuance of certificates in regard to new issuances and mandatory listing of private placement of debt under Section 67(3) of Companies Act. The Consultative Paper has proposed provisions for e-issuances of corporate debt and for introducing simplified listing requirements of debt for already listed issuer.

Manupatra Legal Database
Manupatra Round up

PIB- Salient Features of The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers Act

PIB dated 02.01.2008: Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (recognition of forest rights) Act on 1 st Jan 2008, has finally paved the way to undo the injustice to tribals and other forest dwellers. Act confers right to cultivate forest land to the extent under occupation, the right to own, collect, use and dispose of minor forest produce, rights inside forests which are traditional and customary like grazing upon tribals and other forest dwellers Provided, they have been living in and depending on forests for their livelihood, for three generations prior to 13th December, 2005. It designates Gram Sabhas as competent authority for initiating the process of determining the nature and extent of individual or community forest rights that may be given to the scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers.

Manupatra Legal Database
Manupatra Round up

Delhi High Court- Canara Bank v. P. Umesh Pai

The date of birth of Respondent at the time of joining the service was recorded as 26th May 1940 on the basis of Senior School Leaving Certificate. Respondent filed a civil suit in Mangalore wherein Appellant bank was not a party. Decree was passed in the said suit wherein directions were issued to correct the date of birth of the Respondent as 26th October 1942. Respondent made representation to the Appellant bank for correction of his date of birth in service record, which was rejected on 4th April 1978 on the ground that there was no such provision in the rules of Appellant bank. The Respondent thereafter, kept quiet and when he was about to retire he made another representation for correction of his date of birth, which was also rejected by Appellant. Respondent filed Writ Petition which was allowed by learned Single Judge holding that Appellant bank was bound to give effect to the decree passed by Civil Court and also held that Appellant bank was not a necessary party in the said suit as it was a matter concerning School Board and State Government. Hence present appeal. Appellant contended there was delay in approaching the Writ Court and it should have been dismissed at threshold and secondly there was no provision in Rules for correction of date of birth. Held Decision rendered by the Civil Court cannot be said to be binding and effective on the bank for the bank cannot even file an appeal to prove and establish that the aforesaid direction for correction of the date of birth in the service record would not and cannot bind the bank to change the date of birth as entered in the service record of the bank. There is inordinate delay and laches on the part of the Appellant in approaching the writ Court of this Court. The Appellant after rejection of the first representation could and should have immediately approached the writ Court. The Respondent slept over his rights, if any, and accepted the position and only a few days before his date of retirement took up the plea once again by initially filing a representation and on rejection thereof by filing a Writ Petition. Successive representations after rejection of the first representation would not explain the delay. Such a Writ Petition should not have been entertained when filed only a few days prior to the date of retirement. It is apparent that the Writ Petition was filed with a delay of about 22 years and that also just before his retirement. In that view of the matter also the Respondent is not entitled to any relief in the Writ Petition.

Manupatra Legal Database
Manupatra Round up

Delhi High Court- Naveen Sharma v. Medical Council of India and Anr. & Dr.Sunita Kumari v. Union of India and Ors

Appellant after completing his 10+2 underwent six years medical education in a medical university in Bulgaria, recognized by MCI, and was awarded degree in medicine in 2004. He applied for provisional registration under section 13(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, which was refused without assigning any reason. He filed Writ Petition for issuing directions to Respondents to grant provisional registration under Medical Council Act. Writ Petition was dismissed on the grounds that he did not obtain 50% marks in aggregate in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in +2 examination and was not 17 years of age when he joined medical university in Bulgaria. Hence, the present appeal. Respondent contended that Appellant was not covered by the relaxation granted by the Supreme as the Appellant has two disabilities and hence guidelines issued by Supreme Court granting exemption to students who do not meet minimum admission norms were not applicable to the Appellant. It was held that all students who had taken admission abroad prior to 15th March 2002 are allowed to appear in the screening test, if they can be granted exemption. Supreme Court has not stated in the said directions that students who do not meet one minimum eligibility norm prescribed by the Medical Council of India, will be granted exemption and students who do not meet more than one eligibility norm, will not be granted exemption.

High Court Judgments
Manupatra Round up

Supreme Court- Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India (UOI)

The Appellant, an Indian citizen, holding an Indian Passport, is also a resident of United States of America. The Government of the United States of America made a formal request to the Government of India stating that the Appellant was wanted to stand trial in the U.S. District Court for drug trafficking and money laundering. Pursuant to the request made by the Government of the United States of America, he was arrested. The Government of India made a request to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, to make an enquiry in respect of the alleged offences. On the premise that the formal request did not satisfy the requirements of Article 9 of the Extradition Treaty as well as Section 7 of the Act, he filed an application for supply of deficient documents and requested supply of copies thereof to lead his defence, which request was declined by the Magistrate. Extradition enquiry was directed to proceed only on the documents filed by the Respondent in the Trial Court subject to all legal consequences. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate recommended the extradition of the Appellant. A Writ Petition filed questioning the legality and validity of the Order was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. Hence, the present appeal. The Apex Court held that article recovered was a psychotropic substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, possession whereof by itself contributes an offence. Quantity recovered answers the description of commercial quantity. Whereas in a trial, the Court for the purpose of appreciation of evidence may have to shift the burden from stage to stage, such a procedure is not required to be adopted in an enquiry. For the purpose of Section 10, it is necessary to supply the copies of the documents to the fugitive criminal. The word "information" occurring in Section 7 could not mean an evidence which has been brought on record upon strict application of the provisions of the Evidence Act. Use of the terminology "evidence" in Section 7 of the Act must be read in the context of Section 10 and not de'hors the same. An information need not be a documentary evidence or an oral evidence as is understood under the Indian Evidence Act. Section 10 contemplates the copies of exhibits and depositions and official certificates of facts and judicial documents stating facts would, if duly authenticated, be received as evidence. The impugned order was accordingly upheld and appeal was dismissed.

Supreme Court Judgments
Manupatra Round up

Supreme Court- Everest Wools Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. U.P. Financial Corporation and Ors.

The Appellant-company applied for re-scheduling of loan and the same was granted. However, the entire loan was recalled not only because the Appellants were defaulters but also on the allegation that they had purchased second hand plant and machinery from another financial institution in breach of the contract. On enquiry, the allegations against the Appellant-company were found to be incorrect; where after a request was made by the Appellant-company to the Financial Corporation for handing over the possession of the unit to it as also for waiver of interest etc. The Corporation, however, invoked the guarantees executed by the Directors of the Appellant-company. During this period, there were reported cases of theft of machinery. On appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court, on a finding that the Appellants had been trying to evade payment of the amounts under the personal guarantee bonds, which had been invoked by the Corporation, the recovery proceedings initiated by it cannot be stopped, dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, the present appeal. The Apex Court held that when the Corporation takes over possession of the plant and machinery in exercise of its statutory power, apart from its obligation as a "bailee", it also acts as a "trustee" - for taking recourse to sale of the unit, where the possession of the plant and machinery had been taken of an on-going concern, an extra care on the part of the authorities of the Financial Corporation is expected. The impugned judgment was accordingly set aside. Matters were remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration.

Manupatra Legal Database
Manupatra Round up