by Paul Joseph
June 29, 2011
India is trying to build a consensus on liberalising foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail and defence, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee today told a gathering of business leaders and policy makers in Washington. “Discussions are under way to build a consensus on further liberalisation of the FDI policy in retail and defence,” Mukherjee said. Differences exist within the Indian government on the appropriate policies for foreign direct investments in the two sectors. The commerce ministry has proposed majority FDI in defence and retail, but the defence ministry wants a maximum of 49 per cent FDI in its field. Some other ministries are opposed to the freeing up of retail and have asked foreigners to invest heavily in cold chains and retail logistics. Mukherjee will be holding talks on bilateral economic partnership with US treasury secretary Timothy Geithner from tomorrow. The US wish list includes the opening up of Indian industry and the financial sector. “We are just at the very beginning of unlocking the enormous potential of this relationship,” Geithner told the same gathering. “India is at the point now where future growth will depend on the success of the next wave of reforms,” Geithner added. Washington is keenly awaiting New Delhi’s moves on retail. The Indian government allows 51 per cent FDI in single-brand retail and 100 per cent in wholesale cash-and-carry. However, multi-brand retailers such as Walmart and Tesco are barred. An inter-ministry group on inflation under Mukherjee’s chief economic adviser Kaushik Basu has recommended the opening up of the sector. However, the government has sought time to bring on board its allies as well as the Opposition parties, who fear for the future of small retail stores. Research shows a well developed retail chain can eliminate middlemen in the food business — who pocket 60-80 per cent of the price paid by a consumer. Organised retail comprises just 4 per cent of the business. Limits on defence FDI, now at 26 per cent, have become a bone of contention between not only the defence and commerce ministries, but also between foreign investors and Indian corporate houses. Foreign aerospace firms backed by European embassies have been making a case for 74-100 per cent stake; only then can they bring proprietory technology into India, the companies said. Indian corporate houses engaged in defence such as the Tatas, Mahindra and L&T are, however, bitterly opposed to such a blanket relaxation and have instead argued in favour of relaxing FDI to 49 per cent, with Indians remaining in majority control. Assocham in a note to the government has also sought FDI cap to be kept at 49 per cent. Ficci has even said that 49 per cent FDI should be allowed as a special case.
Tagged as:
business,
companies,
defence,
european,
fdi,
financial,
food,
india,
indian,
moves-on-retail,
opposition,
per-cent,
real estate,
real estate developers,
walmart
Read the full article →
by Paul Joseph
May 12, 2011
A Sahara group company, which has raised Rs 4,843 crore by issuing optionally fully convertible debentures (OFCDs), is not using its own bank account to handle this money. In March, the Registrar of Companies (RoC), Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, based in Kanpur, sent a notice to Sahara India Real Estate Corp for using a third party’s bank accounts to receive funds from investors. The debentures were issued by Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation. The cheques were received in the name of “Sahara India”. According to the complainant, the investors put money in Nirman Bonds and real estate bonds. As instructed by the agents, they issued cheques in favour of “M/s Sahara India”. When they got the receipts, they realised these had been issued in the name of a third party. “The cheque was taken in the name of Sahara India. However, the receipts have been issued by a third company. Is this action approved by the Registrar of Companies?,” the investor asked in his complaint. Business Standard sent several mails and reminders to the company over the last couple of weeks. However, it responded late tonight, seeking another 48 hours to reply. However, in a written response dated April 19, 2011, Sahara India Real Estate Corp told the registrar that “Sahara India Real Estate Corporation, through an agreement with M/s Sahara India, has agreed to utilise infrastructure, including bank accounts and other services, of the firm for private placement of optionally fully convertible debentures.” The company said this did not attract action under Section 297 of Companies Act, 1956, as no director of the company was an interested party as a partner in Sahara India. However, neither the application forms nor the receipts mention this agreement, keeping investors in the dark. According to legal experts, this is prima facie a wrong practice and may lead to misuse of funds by the third party, impacting the interests of investors. “Technically, it is wrong. How can I use somebody else’s bank account?” said Kanu Doshi, a senior chartered accountant and dean of Welingkar Institute of Management, adding he did not want to comment further as the matter was sub judice. The case is scheduled to come up on Thursday. The Supreme Court has asked Sahara to submit a list of agents and the formats of application forms it has been using to raise money through debentures. According to Sahara India Real Estate’s submission, the company has 6.6 million investors. Sebi guidelines clearly specify that any issue of equity or debt to more than 49 people is governed by the Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements norms. Sebi mandates safeguards like appointment of dedicated bankers to handle public issues. Also, subscription funds are to be held in an escrow account during the period of allotment of shares before being transferred to the company’s account. Sebi has issued an order banning Sahara from raising money through OFCDs for violating public issue norms.
Tagged as:
application,
companies,
delhi,
estate,
investment,
mumbai,
real estate developers,
real estate trends,
sahara,
sahara-india,
supreme-court
Read the full article →