Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

New Delhi, In an unusual move, the Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notices to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal judicial member Rakesh Kumar and technical member Alok Srivastava, asking them why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for defying apex court orders in Finolex Cables disputes matter. A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud took strong exception to the passing of a judgement by the <keyword id="6396355" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="nclat" source="Orion">NCLAT</keyword> bench. The top court set aside the NCLAT bench's October 13 judgement relating to the annual general meeting (AGM) of Finolex Cables without going into its merit. The bench also comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said the case would be heard by NCLAT chief Justice Ashok Bhushan. "NCLAT has got down to a rot now. This case is an illustration of that rot.We are prima facie of the view that the members of the NCLAT have failed to disclose correct facts. "We are of the view that it is necessary to pass orders to ensure that the dignity of this court is restored. Parties cannot be allowed by recourse to devious means to obviate this court's orders," the bench said. The order is related to the annual general meeting (AGM) of Finolex Cables and Prakash Chhabria and Deepak Chhabria's legal tussle over the management control of the company. It is rare for the Supreme Court to issue contempt notices against NCLAT members. The Supreme Court on Friday last had directed the NCLAT chairperson to conduct an enquiry and submit a report by Monday over an allegation that one of its benches proceeded and delivered an order without following the top court's directions. A three-member apex court bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud had on that day directed the NCLAT to proceed to its judgment and declare the results of the meeting only after getting the scrutiniser's report. The Supreme Court order was uploaded at 1.55 pm and the counsel also informed the development to the NCLAT bench, which was scheduled to deliver the judgment at 2 pm. However, a two-member bench of the NCLAT comprising Justice Kumar, Member Judicial, and Srivastava, Member Technical, went ahead and pronounced the order, while the scrutiniser's report was uploaded at 2:40 pm.

Finolex Cables matter: SC issues contempt notices to NCLAT judicial member, technical member for defying its orders

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Tuesday said the <keyword id="20033948" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ministry-of-Ayush" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Ministry of Ayush" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Ministry of Ayush">Ministry of Ayush</keyword> should set up a <keyword id="19967137" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="dashboard" source="keywords">dashboard</keyword> so that details about <keyword id="19907147" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="complaints" source="keywords">complaints</keyword> filed on misleading advertisements and progress made on them can be made available to the consumers. The apex court had earlier highlighted the aspect of misleading advertisements being published or displayed in media contrary to the provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 and the rules, the <keyword id="21538574" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Drugs-and-Cosmetics-Act" source="keywords">Drugs and Cosmetics Act</keyword>, 1940, and the <keyword id="20003685" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Consumer-Protection-Act" source="keywords">Consumer Protection Act</keyword>, 1986. A bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a plea filed by the <keyword id="20083252" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indian-Medical-Association" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Indian Medical Association" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Indian Medical Association">Indian Medical Association</keyword> (IMA) alleging a smear campaign by <keyword id="21257004" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Patanjali-Ayurved-Ltd" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Patanjali Ayurved Ltd" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Patanjali Ayurved Ltd">Patanjali Ayurved Ltd</keyword> against the Covid vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine. The bench noted that the lack of proper data regarding action taken on the complaints received leaves the consumers helpless and in the dark. "The Ministry of Ayush must set up a dashboard citing complaints received... so that the data comes in the public domain," the bench observed. It added that the data can also help in addressing the issue of prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The top court was informed that in several states, a number of complaints regarding misleading advertisements were forwarded to other states as the firms manufacturing those products were based there. The bench noted that the number of complaints made by the consumers, which was over 2,500 earlier, has gone down to only around 130 and the main reason appears to be that the grievance redressal mechanism for dealing with such complaints has not been properly publicised. It asked the ministry concerned to look into this issue and file an affidavit within two weeks. The apex court bench also dealt with the aspect concerning manufacturing licences of 14 products of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and Divya Pharmacy. The Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority (SLA) on April 15 issued an order suspending the manufacturing licences of 14 products of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and Divya Pharmacy. However, the state licensing authority later filed an additional affidavit in the apex court stating the suspension order has been cancelled following a report by a high-level committee which examined the grievances of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd in the wake of the row. On May 17, it said the operation of the April 15 order was paused and the suspension order was cancelled on July 1. During the hearing on Tuesday, the counsel appearing for the IMA told the apex court bench about the cancellation of the suspension order. "What is the status today?" the bench asked. The counsel appearing for Uttarakhand said that after the July 1 order, a fresh notice was issued to Patanjali and the SLA received a reply from Patanjali on July 19. When the state's counsel said they have sought legal opinion in the matter, the bench asked, "How much time do you need to wrap up the matter after hearing them?". When the counsel said they needed three to four weeks, the bench asked, "Why?". It told the state to pass an order pursuant to the show cause notice before the next date of hearing and communicate the same to Patanjali. It also dealt with the issue related to its May 7 directive, which said that before an advertisement was printed, aired or displayed, a self-declaration shall be submitted by the advertiser or advertising agency on the lines contemplated in Rule 7 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994. Rule 7 of the 1994 rules deals with the advertisement code and stipulates that advertisements carried in the cable service shall be designed to be in conformity with the laws and should not offend the morality, decency and religious susceptibilities of the subscribers. The top court on May 7 said self-declaration shall be uploaded by the advertiser or advertising agency on the 'Broadcast Sewa Portal' run under the aegis of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. During the hearing on Tuesday, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj informed the bench that the ministry had convened a meeting of all stakeholders on June 30 in which 40-odd parties participated to discuss the issue. He said another meeting was held in July and some time was needed to collate all the information and give recommendations. The bench granted two weeks to the ministry to do the needful. When Nataraj said some stakeholders have sought more time to give suggestions, the bench said, "They have to hurry up and pull up their socks." On May 14, the apex court reserved its order on the contempt notice issued to yoga guru Ramdev, his aide Balkrishna and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd in the misleading advertisements case. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd assured the top court on November 21 last year that it will not violate any law, especially those relating to advertising or branding of products manufactured and marketed by it. It had also assured the bench that "no casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine will be released to the media in any form". The top court had said Patanjali Ayurved Ltd is "bound down to such assurance".

Misleading ads: Ayush ministry should set up dashboard to make details of complaints public, says SC

<ul><li><keyword id="6418655" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="minority-shareholders" source="Orion">Minority shareholders</keyword> can do little to protect their investments in case of boardroom and family battles of promoters, say experts.</li><li>Shareholders should take a call to sell or stay invested based on how the company is performing.</li><li>Any legal recourse by minority shareholders can lead to further dilution of stock value, warn lawyers. </li></ul>The Raymond family drama has taken its toll on minority shareholders of the company because this category of investors is the most vulnerable. The stock has fallen by over 17% ever since <keyword id="6405378" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="gautam-singhania" source="Orion">Gautam Singhania</keyword>’s wife <keyword id="305817" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="nawaz-modi" source="Orion">Nawaz Modi</keyword> publicly accused him of assault. His letter to the board assuring smooth functioning of Raymond, has done little to calm the storm. This is not the only case where minority shareholders, who hold less than 50% of the stock, are affected by feuds between board and family members. There are two other ongoing cases of family members sparring over control of companies — pharma company Hikal and Finolex Cables. In these cases, there is very little that shareholders can do, say experts. They’re left between the choice of offloading stock as it’s falling or holding it for an indefinite period. In these cases, should shareholders sell or stay? “There is no easy way to answer this,” says Deepak Jasani, head of retail research at HDFC Securities. “It all depends on if the company is continuing to do well. They have to decide based on if the dispute can have a quick resolution or will be prolonged,” he adds. Delhi-based corporate lawyer Anuroop Omkar, founding partner of law firm AK &amp; Partners says that minority shareholders are very low in the pecking order when it comes to their ability to act. “Even in an insolvency, they’re below secured creditors,” he says. There is a provision in the Company Act 2013 called ‘Oppression and mismanagement in a company’ which protects minority rights. Mismanagement can be defined as conducting company affairs in a prejudicial, dishonest or inept manner. “But this can’t be invoked in the Raymond case, as it’s a personal battle,” he adds. Top corporate battles that affected shareholder value <table style="border-width: initial; border-style: none;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Feud </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Year </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Effect </td></tr><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Family dispute between Mukesh Ambani &amp; Anil Ambani </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">2004 </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Culminated into a split of the company &amp; a court battle over natural gas sales later </td></tr><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Dispute between promoter Narayana Murthy &amp; Vishal Sikka, the CEO over functioning of the company </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">2017 </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Sikka quit the company </td></tr><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Family members Sungandha Hiremath and Baba Kalyani battle over Hikal </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">2023 </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">The case over family arrangement made in 1994 is being heard in Bombay High Court </td></tr><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Cousins Prakash and Deepak Chhabria battle over control of Finolex </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">2016 </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">The case is with courts and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) </td></tr></tbody></table> Between stock &amp; a hard place There is no third option for shareholders, even if they lose faith in the promoters’ ability to conduct business. They can only wait and watch, experts say. “Minority shareholders will have to rely on the Board and independent directors to act on their behalf,” Shriram Subramanian, founder &amp; MD of proxy advisory firm InGovern tells Business Insider India. In Raymond’s case, the board of directors can investigate based on allegations made by Modi that company funds have been misused. “The Board has to ringfence the company from utilization of funds by Gautam Singhania for any personal legal matters,” adds Subramanian. Institutional advisory firm IiAS also wrote an open letter seeking independent investigation by the board, asking them to send promoters on leave till investigation is complete. “Independent directors have a fiduciary responsibility towards minority investors, employees and a larger set of the company’s stakeholders. Therefore, you will need to dispassionately separate ownership from management,” IiAS’ letter says. Legal recourse: A double-edged sword There is, however, a way for minority shareholders to edge into the board, with the help of courts. “If there is a case of harassment or erratic behaviour, many entities related to the company like vendors, employees can file a class-action lawsuit wherein shareholders can join in too. But it doesn’t happen too often in India,” says Omakar. Only Foreign Institutional Investors (FII) who have over 1% stake in the company or a high-networth individual (HNI) who can afford to take up such long-standing fights. Subramanian believes that fighting for rights comes at a cost for minority shareholders. Also, the rights need to be exercised with responsibility. Minority shareholders, depending on their shareholding, can exert their rights to bring about change in the company, including change of directors, appointment of new directors, etc. Legal recourse can also work against the long-term interests of shareholders too. “There can be a major share price drop if a legal battle is taken up,” says Omkar. That can go against the interests of shareholders who want to protect the value of their investments. Until then, stock experts advise shareholders to read up on the corporate governance track record of companies and take a call on whether they want to hold on or sell out from a company engaged in a battle of its own. SEE ALSO <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/news/rbi-governor-asks-realty-companies-to-stress-test-their-books/articleshow/105411235.cms">RBI governor asks realty companies to stress test their books</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/policy/economy/news/rupee-hits-a-new-low-in-november-despite-fall-in-dollar-index/articleshow/105551439.cms">Rupee hits a new low in November despite fall in dollar index</a>

Minority shareholders must grin and bear it when promoters wash dirty laundry in public

ESPNESPN announced their latest round of layoffs on Wednesday morning with <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-layoffs-2017-4" target="_blank">100 employees expected to lose their job, including dozens of on-air personalities</a>.In the immediate aftermath, accusations began to fly as to why the almighty ESPN has to lay off employees."It's because of their liberal politics! It's killing their ratings!" - This has nothing to do with it. ESPN's ratings are as strong as ever."It's because they are a dying brand that is losing millions of subscribers!" - this is getting closer to the truth, but is still way off. ESPN is not dying. Not even close.ESPN is losing millions of subscribers. By our last count, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-subscribers-2017-3" target="_blank">ESPN has lost 12 million subscribers in the last six years</a>, a drop of about 12%, and there is no sign yet that the drop is slowing down.But the problem is much more complicated than that and at the same time, it is not nearly as bad as it sounds.Not all of those subscribers are ESPN viewers. In fact, it is a safe bet that most of them were not ESPN viewers. Rather, they were simply cable cord-cutters who no longer wanted to pay money each month for networks they don't watch - including <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-satellite-tv-sub-fees-espn-networks-2017-3" target="_blank">$7.21 each month for ESPN alone and $9.06 each month for the ESPN family of networks</a>.In other words, the loss of subscribers hurts subscription revenue, but it won't impact advertising revenue because ratings for ESPN's live sports are as strong as ever. So then, why the latest layoffs? The answer is two-fold: ESPN is modernizing their business model by becoming more digital and they are trying to save "SportsCenter." The former is something every media company is doing and the latter is something that has been a huge problem at ESPN for years.This is something that was first reported by Jim Miller, author of "Those Guys Have All the Fun: Inside the World of ESPN" and <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-layoffs-2017-4" target="_blank">later confirmed by ESPN President John Skipper</a>.It is difficult to understate how important SportsCenter was for ESPN in the years before the internet made everything more accessible. SportsCenter was must-watch TV for any sports fan. But nowadays, ratings for the show have fallen, and ESPN is struggling to keep it relevant.A year ago, one former ESPNer and SportsCenter anchor, Keith Olbermann, was a guest on "<a href="https://soundcloud.com/the-bill-simmons-podcast/ep-84-keith-olbermann" target="_blank">The Bill Simmons Podcast,</a>" hosted by another former ESPNer. Simmons asked Olbermann how ESPN can save SportsCenter, noting that because of social media and mobile devices, a show based on highlights is no longer needed.From Olbermann:"[Former ESPN executive editor] John Walsh said, I think this was 1993, 'You know, we have done all sorts of marketing and research and no matter what happens to ESPN, as long as we have SportsCenter and it is a success, we will be dominant in this field no matter what competition arises. Our research indicates that our fans will stick with us if we lose the NFL contract and they will stay with us if we lose this personality, as long as we have SportsCenter and it is accurate and well done, we will be dominant in this field.' And it's not true anymore, because it can't be the centerpiece of the operations for the reasons we already alluded to. But they clearly, and I think you would agree with me, they don't know that. And all attempts to change it are predicated on the idea that it can be what it was, two years ago, five years ago, 20 years ago when Dan [Patrick] and I did it. And it can't."Well, in the year since that podcast, it would seem that ESPN finally got the memo - SportsCenter is no longer a success and that may be threatening their dominance to a small degree, at least outside of live sports.As a result, quietly, in some respects, ESPN has been rebranding most of their SportsCenter shows. Rather than have one entity that airs all day long, they now have a family of SportsCenters, each with its own personality and spin.Maybe more importantly, SportsCenter is no longer just a highlights show. They are now something more akin to a talk show. Highlights have become an afterthought in many cases and several of the shows even have new names.There is "SportsCenter with Scott Van Pelt," hosted by SportsCenter veteran SVP. This SportsCenter airs most weeknights at midnight, typically immediately after some live sporting event.ESPNThere is "SC6," hosted by sports talk veterans Michael Smith and Jamele Hill. As the name implies, this is the other legacy spot for SportsCenter, weeknights at 6:00 pm, which leads into the evening's sporting events.ESPNBut maybe the biggest change is the one that hasn't happened yet, but has been heavily rumored for months - a new morning SportsCenter that will be hosted by Mike Greenberg of "Mike &amp; Mike."If the rumors are to be believed, this show will be the biggest change yet. Instead of highlights, this SportsCenter will become something much more like "Good Morning America" or maybe "Live with Kelly." That is, a traditional morning talk show, with some traditional SportsCenter elements sprinkled in. <a href="https://www.si.com/tech-media/2017/01/12/mike-and-mike-greenberg-espn-radio-sportscenter-am" target="_blank">From Richard Deitsch of Sports Illustrated</a>:"ESPN executives are moving forward with the plan to shift Mike Greenberg-one half of the long-running Mike &amp; Mike radio show on ESPN Radio-into a new role as the lead host of a television show that would air in the mornings on ESPN. The new show will have elements of SportsCenter-which currently airs at that time-as well as a traditional morning show. It is expected to be based in New York City. The new program would put an end to end to Greenberg's on-air partnership with Mike Golic, which began in October 1998."The Sporting News later reported that Sage Steele, the former host of "NBA Countdown,"would be moving to an AM show on ESPN, leading to speculation that she would be part of what some have dubbed "Greeny and Friends."Even this show still has elements of the problems put forth by Olbermann. That is, ESPN is trying desperately to move these shows forward and attract a new audience and yet they are still living in the past with "elements" of traditional SportsCenters.In other words, ESPN is trying to move forward and stay in the past at the same time. Only time will tell if it works this time.In the meantime, this rebranding means a lot of familiar faces will lose their jobs as the faces of SportsCenter change and it would seem that these changes have been in the works for months. <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/pro-golfers-hitting-ball-farther-club-the-masters-ball-technology-golf-2017-4">Pro golfers are hitting the ball farther than ever before</a></h3> Please enable Javascript to watch this video

You Searched For "finolex cables matter sc" and got 4 results

Finolex Cables matter: SC issues contempt notices to NCLAT judicial member, technical member for defying its orders

PTI

Misleading ads: Ayush ministry should set up dashboard to make details of complaints public, says SC

PTI

Minority shareholders must grin and bear it when promoters wash dirty laundry in public

Katya Naidu

Some of the latest ESPN layoffs are part of an effort to save their dying flagship program - SportsCenter

Cork Gaines

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides