Saturday, November 28, 2009

3 years in jail for leaking CAT exam details

MUMBAI: Just in case you’re an MBA aspirant who’s planning to disclose any details of the CAT exam — which will be conducted over a period of 10 
TwitterFacebookShare
EmailPrintSaveComment
days starting Saturday — here’s a word of caution. The IIMs have put out a disclaimer on their website warning that such action could result in imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of Rs 2 lakh as it violates a number of laws including the Copyright Act.

While this is common knowledge and was applicable for the earlier CAT exams too, this is possibly the first time that the rule has been put out in writing. Candidates appearing for CAT will have to consent to a Non-Disclosure Agreement at the time of the test.

According to the disclaimer, ‘‘Disclosing, publishing, reproducing, transmitting, storing, or facilitating transmission and storage of the contents of the CAT or any information therein in whole or part thereof in any form or by any means, verbal or written, electronically or mechanically for any purpose, shall be in violation of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and/or the Copyright Act, 1957 and/or the Information Technology Act.’’

While coaching classes have routinely put out details of the CAT paper online and have analysed the paper in detail on their websites, this time round, many say they are doing a rethink.

‘‘We’ve consulted our lawyers over the matter, and they say we could invite a penalty if we disclose any details about the paper,’’ said a coaching class head.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

SC tells runaway mom, child to return to US

NEW DELHI: Ending a cross-continental tug-of-war between an estranged NRI couple involving their only child, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered 
TwitterFacebookShare
EmailPrintSaveComment
that Vijayshree Voora return to the US with her seven-year-old son Adithya and husband V Ravi Chandran and submit to the jurisdiction of the American court.

The apex court's verdict puts paid to the efforts of Vijayshree who fled to India with Adithya soon after the US court order in 2007 for joint custody of the child in the divorce dispute. For months, she kept shifting places to dodge the police. 

The SC directed the mother to go back to US, submit herself to the local court's jurisdiction and, if she so wishes, initiate proceedings seeking changes in the order asking her to share Adithya's custody with Ravi Chandran.

While the case spotlighted the emotional trauma that ugly divorces and separations inflict on children, the judgment of the Bench comprising Justices Tarun Chatterjee, R M Lodha and B S Chauhan is significant in that it rejected the mother's argument that Indian courts were not obligated to enforce orders of American courts that were inconsistent with local laws.

This judgment is pathbreaking also in the sense that it comes despite an ugly incident three years ago when a US family court had refused to accede to an order of the Supreme Court of India for production of two minors, the grandchildren of the son of former actor-politician N T Rama Rao.

Vijayshree's allegation through senior advocate T L V Iyer that the father used to ill-treat the child, hamper his education and abuse him were termed as "hollow" by the Bench which found that all custody orders by US courts were granted on consent of both parties -- the father and mother.

What also went against the mother was the manner in which she changed her place of stay frequently to avoid detection by police after the SC issued notice to the states on a habeas corpus petition filed by the father. Finally, it had to seek the help of CBI to trace her and the child.

Agreeing with Ravi Chandran's counsel Pinky Anand, the Bench asked her to comply with the US court order of June 18, 2007, granting joint custody of the child to the estranged couple, but directed the father to move the courts there to suspend the arrest warrants issued against her.

The court also asked the father to bear the travel expenses of the mother and child to US and pay for their stay there till further orders of the US family court. "The father of the child will not pursue any criminal charge for violation of orders of US court passed on mutual consent," the Bench said.

After passing the order, Justice Lodha, writing the judgment for the Bench, warned that if the mother failed to take the child on her own to US within 15 days, the child's custody would be restored to the father along with the minor's passport to be taken to US, where local courts would initiate further proceedings. 

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Madhu Koda's money trail abroad unravelled

NEW DELHI: Enforcement Directorate and Income Tax sleuths, on the trail of former Jharkhand CM Madhu Koda, have hit a jackpot. They have 
uncovered details of transfer of at least $110 million (about Rs 550 crore) to a frontman in Dubai for overseas investments and acquisitions by Koda’s associates.

The findings are a setback to Koda who has denied doing any wrong, and challenged the agencies to prove the charges against him.

The breakthrough came when officials seized records of Mumbai-based Balaji Bullion and Retailers, suspected to have been used to transfer at least $10 million to a Dubai frontman, Abdul Bhai. Investigators suspect the firm could have sent as much as Rs 990 crore, sources said.

Sources believe $100 million (Rs 500 crore) might have also been sent to Abdul Bhai through Mumbai-based contact, Manoj Punamia.

Tax officials have been able to get a ‘‘confession’’ from Mumbai-based aide Arvind Vyas that he arranged delivery of $1 million to Sanjay Chaudhary — who oversaw Koda’s operations in Dubai.

Mumbai-based Arvind Vyas has ‘confessed’ that he arranged delivery of $1 million to Sanjay Chaudhary — a key aide of former Jharkhand CM Madhu Koda.

Both Vyas and Chaudhary are directors of Balaji Bullion and Retailers which has on its board another accomplice of Koda — Vinod Sinha. The concern seems to have been floated specially for the purpose of funnelling the money for investments and acquisitions in Dubai, Liberia and other places.

The launch of the firm is testimony to the planning that went into managing the flow of money, and has surprised investigators, considering the background of Koda’s aides, Sinha and Chaudhary. Sinha was a milk vendor not long ago, while Chaudhary’s father hawked chewing tobacco on his bicycle till recently.

Chaudhary had allegedly registered two companies — Cam Pech Manufacturing LLC and Blue Techno — in Dubai which were part of a web of deception that was used for handling Koda’s investments and assets abroad. Vijay Joshi, Vikash Sinha and Dhananjay Chaudhary helped Sanjay Chaudhary with money laundering in Dubai.

Investigations have brought out evidence of the alleged largescale corruption that flourished under Koda, with former CM and ministerial colleagues along with leading lights of UPA allies — JMM and RJD — milking the political instability in Jharkhand.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Madhu-Kodas-money-trail-abroad-unravelled/articleshow/5191120.cms

SC judges declare assets on website

NEW DELHI: Two months after the Supreme Court, faced with demands and growing pressure from within, resolved to make public the assets and 
liabilities of its judges, the details were put up on its official website.

The significant step towards transparency was marked by some surprise revelations — one of the judges doesn’t own even a two-wheeler, while another has a Yamaha motorcycle as his sole vehicle. There are details of land, houses, investments in shares and flats as well.

Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan owns land in Kerala and Faridabad in Haryana besides a house and a flat. Interestingly, however, he has no fixed deposit or investment in shares. 

In contrast, Justice S H Kapadia, the No.2 in the apex court who is in line to be the next CJI, has the bulk of his investments — Rs 22 lakh of a total of Rs 40 lakh — in shares. The rest is invested in mutual funds, fixed deposits and Provident Fund. The diverse portfolio is in keeping with Justice Kapadia’s reputation of being conversant with matters of finance.

All the judges, except Justice H S Bedi who has been out of the Capital because of bereavement, have posted their assets on the website.

The website also mentions the assets of
Justice B N Agrawal even though he retired on October 10. He made a request for including his declaration, arguing that being party to the August 28 decision of the Full Court to disclose assets, he was obliged to do so.

In many cases, lists of assets, liabilities and investments are exhaustive, with the judges disclosing to the last detail jewellery and the latest value of shares in their possession. In other cases, however, the declarations are vague.

The judges had opposed the demand of disclosure, arguing that declarations could make them susceptible to harassment through frivolous litigation. The Supreme Court even opposed in Delhi High Court the January 6 order of the Central Information Commission asking the SC Registry to provide information whether judges declared their assets regularly or not.The stance changed after two HC judges came out in the open to argue for disclosure, leading to the decision by the Full Court meeting on August 28.

A note of caution for those who may rush to conclusions on the riches of judges. Most of them were successful lawyers who earned a lot as senior advocates before joining the Bench from the Bar.

The CJI and his wife own gold jewellery weighing about 20 sovereigns and a 2000 model Santro but hold no shares in any company. He has no fixed deposits. But while he may possibly be the poorest of the lot when it comes to hard cash, the CJI does have decent land holdings. He owns over 12 acres in Kanayanoor taluk (Ernakulam) in Kerala, besides family property worth Rs 3.5 lakh in Vaikom taluk, a two-bedroom flat in Ernakulam and a plot in Faridabad measuring 444 sq yards. His wife owns property in Kottayam.

Justice Kapadia, who does not own a vehicle, appears to be meticulous with his investments, worth over Rs 40 lakh, the bulk in shares. The judge also has property worth Rs 20 lakh in Mumbai and has zero liability. His wife has shares worth Rs 19 lakh at present value. Besides, she has other investments worth over Rs 13 lakh.

Justice Tarun Chatterjee owns one building in Kolkata and a two-third share in ancestral property. He and his spouse own 46 pieces of gold, diamond and pearl jewellery, while FDs and PPF amount to Rs 3.1 lakh. He has two cars, a Chevrolet Tavera and a Honda Civic, and outstanding liabilities of Rs 7.5 lakh. 


Justice Altamas Kabir
owns a house in Kolkata’s Salt Lake worth Rs 30.75 lakh. He and his wife possess 127.25 grams of gold and FDs and PPF worth Rs 43.97 lakh.

Justice R V Raveendran appears to be in favour of investing his money in real estate. He owns four residential and an office plot in Bangalore, while his wife has one-fifth share in three commercial properties in the city. She would also be the envy of wives of other judges as she owns 370 grams of gold jewellery, besides 12 carats of diamonds and five kilos of silver.

Justice B S Chauhan has one-third share in two ancestral residential properties in Muzaffarnagar, one-third share in agricultural land (200 bighas) and a residential building in Sector 15-A, Noida. Besides, he has investments worth Rs 9 lakh in Reliance (as mentioned in the declaration), Rs 3 lakh in HDFC, Rs 2 lakh in ABN Amro and Rs 20 lakh in PF.

Justice P Sathasivam has declared that he owns a 1989 Yamaha motorcycle. He also owns a residential plot in Chennai with a market value Rs 45,000.

In addition, he has 12.49 acres of agricultural land. His wife owns five acres.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-judges-declare-assets-on-website/articleshow/5191127.cms