- Voice For Justice - e-news weekly
Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.11..Issue.49........05/12/2015
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED - WHERE IS ACCOUNTABILITY?
PIL – Legal Prosecution of Government officials , Public Servants involved in Reliance Scams
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
, SOS e Clarion of Dalit &
SOS e Voice for Justice ,
whole hearted respects to honest few in judiciary , parliament &
public service. Our salutes to them , due to honest efforts of those
few noble persons only at least democracy is surviving in India.
. Loot of natural resources , telecom
spectrum & public property in
India and illegal aid to those criminals by
(ii) Hereby , I do request the honourble supreme court of india to legally prosecute guilty officials mentioned in the above said report.
(iii) Hereby , I do request the honourble supreme court of india to uphold the constitution of india , to protect natural resources and to protect the constitutional rights of all Indian citizens including mine.
Reacting to Arvind Kejriwal’s presser where he said that an FIR will be filed against Mukesh Ambani, current oil minister Veerappa Moily and former oil minister Murli Deora over the gas pricing formula, Moily said that we should sympathize with his ignorance since kejriwal doesn’t know how the government functions. He reiterated that the norms were being followed and there is a system for fixing prices.
ALSO READ: Kejriwal orders FIR against Mukesh, Moily
So who is actually ignorant in this case? Were the norms actually followed or has Kejriwal raised some valid points.
Here is a refresher and ready reckoner on the entire KG D6 gas basin controversy.
1) What is KG D6 basin?
Krishna Godavari (KG) Basin is spread across 50,000 sq km in the Krishna River and Godavari river basins near the coast of Andhra Pradesh. The site Dhirubhai-6 (D6) is where Reliance Industries discovered the biggest gas reserves in India. In government records, the 7,645 sq km block is known as KG-DWN-98/1. The KG basin is considered to be the largest natural gas basin in India.
2) How did Reliance Industries get into KG basin?
Government of India opened up hydrocarbon exploration and production (E&P) in the country to private and foreign players in 1991. Small and medium sized blocks were opened up in this round which was followed up by giving out bigger blocks in 1999 as per the New Exploration and Licensing Policy (NELP). Through NELP, Reliance bagged the rights to explore the D6 block.
3) Did government have a role after the block was handed over?
Since all mining resources belong to the people of India, government monitors the exploration and production of these. In the case of oil and gas sector, government enters into contractual relationship with the private player through a Production Sharing Contract (PSC). The PSC lays out roles and responsibilities of all parties, specifies the detailed procedures to be followed at different stages of exploration, development and production. It also specifies the cost recovery and profit sharing in the contract. Directorate General of Hydrocarbon (DGH) monitors the PSC. A PSC was signed between the government of India (GOI) and undivided Reliance Industries and its minority partner Niko Resources (10 per cent stake) for exploration and production of oil and gas.
4) What happened to KG D6 when the Reliance group split?
Even before production could start from the KG D6 wells, Reliance group was split vertically between the two brothers, with the gas business of Reliance Industries remaining with Mukesh Ambani, the elder brother. The brothers fought over this huge reserve of gas even though it was not theirs in the first place. The very first line of a production sharing contract clearly says that “By virtue of article 297 of the Constitution of India, Petroleum is a natural state in the territorial waters and the continental shelf of India is vested with the Union of India”.
The brothers while splitting their father’s empire split the gas reserves too. A family pact between the two brothers, which was never made public till the issue blew out of proportion, was at the core of the dispute. Anil Ambani owned RNRL (Reliance Natural Resources Ltd) citing the agreement by the brothers in 2005, claimed it had rights to gas from Reliance KG basin for 17 years at $2.34 per mmBtu (million British thermal unit).The Supreme Court finally settled the matter by saying that ‘the government owns the gas till it reaches its ultimate consumer and parties must restrict their negotiation within the conditions of the government policy’.
Here the role of the government needs to be highlighted. None of the ministries involved in the process, including the oil ministry which Moily now represents, raised the point that the gas reserves belonged to the country and was not a property of the Ambani family. Even the Prime Minister, ManMohan Singh meekly requested the brothers to settle their differences in the interests of the country.
But how did the Ambani brothers arrive at this magic figure of $2.34 per mmBtu when there was no benchmark. In fact ONGC was supplying gas to the government at half the rate.
5) How did Anil Ambani arrive at the price of $2.34 per mmBtu for KG basin gas?
In June 2004, National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) invited bids for supply of gas for its 2600 MW power plant in Kawas and Gandhar. Reliance Industries, hopeful of starting production of gas by the time NTPC’s power plant is ready bid for the project and was awarded it as the lowest ‘techno-commercial’ bidder. A Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued to Reliance Industries to supply 132 trillion units of gas per annum to NTPC for 17 years at a price of $2.34 per mmBtu. Anil Ambani used this as a basis for asking gas for his power plant.
6) Why is the NTPC-Reliance dispute all about?
Reliance Industries refused to sign the contract for supply of gas. Jairam Ramesh, the Minister of Power in a written reply to a question in Lok Sabha in 2009 said that “After issuance of LOI, RIL did not come forward to sign the Gas Sale and Purchase Agreement and sought major changes in the draft GSPA.In spite of all the efforts (by NTPC) RIL did not sign the GSPA agreed during the bidding process.”
NTPC dragged Reliance to Bombay High Court on December 20, 2005 but unfortunately the case that has dragged on. The case after nine years is still sub judice. Here again the government's disinterest in protecting the interests of its own PSU has been a matter of much debate.
While NTPC was fighting the case with Reliance in the Bombay High Court, the government referred the matter to an Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM) in 2007 headed by none other than the current President Pranab Mukherjee, who was then the finance minister. EGoM approved a rate hike of $4.2 per mmBtu of gas. This decision was taken without a single unit of gas coming out of the KG basin.
Reliance grabbed at this opportunity and said that it could not supply gas at a price lower than the mandated price set by the government.
7) How did Pranab Mukherjee arrive at the price of $4.2 mmBtu for gas?
The price was arrived by Reliance through its ‘price discovery mechanism’. As per a Reliance crafter formula, user companies were asked to quote a price which gave them a choice of arriving at a value between $4.54 and $4.75 per mmBtu. Reliance initially forwarded a figure of $4.59 which was later brought down to $4.3, but Pranab Mukherjee claimed victory by announcing a figure of $4.2 per mmBtu.
The brazenness of the entire exercise by the government can be seen from the fact that the objections raised by the Principal Advisor, Power and Energy to the government of India, Surya P Sethi along with the then cabinet secretary were ignored by the government. Surya questions the recommendation saying that nowhere is the cost of production more than $1.43.
8) Is it exploration or exploitation?
A CAG report released in 2011 (initiated in 2007 but delayed due to non-co-operation) on Performance Audit of Hydrocarbon PSCs castigated the oil ministry along with Reliance to retain its entire KG-D6 block in contravention of the PSC. As per the PSC, Reliance should have relinquished 25 per cent of the total area outside the discoveries in 2004 and 2005, but the entire area was declared as a discovery area (after initial objections) and the company was allowed to retain it. Without drilling adequate wells, Reliance kept on claiming that there was potential for petroleum. In CAG’s words this was done to confuse potential/prospectivity with actual discovery of hydrocarbons. The move allowed Reliance to keep the entire area to itself without following the norms laid under the PSC.
In a recent report CAG has said that Reliance moved directly from discovery to commercial production, skipping the intermediate appraisal programme step required as under PSC. CAG asks, without an appraisal programme how did the government and DGH ascertain the amount of gas in the well? And if they did not know how much gas was there in the well, what is the logic and basis of blaming Reliance of hoarding gas. Further, as pointed out by CAG, how did DGH assure itself of reliability of the development plan, production rate and production costs without the appraisal report?
9) Why more investments are bad?
CAG pointed out that as per the PSC, more investments, especially in initial stages would mean more profit for the operator and less for the government. This structure gives inadequate incentive for operators to reduce capital expenditure and provides them with substantial incentives to ‘front-end’ capital expenditure. Share of government profit varies from 85 per cent in a low investment scenario to 5 per cent in a high investment scenario. This explains the case of exaggerated investment made against Reliance Industries.
Incidentally, as pointed out by V Ranganathan of IIM Bangalore in his article in Economic Times, the case of exaggerated investment was first pointed out by Anil Ambani, where he pointed out that investment as per Reliance’s plan is increasing four times but production is expected to only double. Reliance revised its production estimates from 40 mmscmd (million metric standard cubic metres per day) to 80 mmscmd while increasing its investment from $2.4 billion to $8.8 billion.
10) How was the new
pricing formula arrived at?
Former RBI governor C Rangarajan came out with a formula which has been followed nowhere in the world, which has resulted in Reliance (and other players too) getting a price on import parity basis. Surya Sethi, former Principal Adviser, Power and Energy, Government of India does not mince words when he asks the Prime Minister in an open letter [Read here] not to burden the nation with Rangarajan Committee’s madness that only benefit a select few.
Sethi’s open letter to the Prime Minister sums up the entire issue when he points out that the CAG’s findings reveal how crony capitalism benefited RIL. The pre-qualification norms were diluted to ensure RIL qualified, the claimed size of gas discoveries, the field development plans and the investment outlays proposed escaped rigorous due diligence says Sethi. Above all, the company’s commitments under the PSC on gas output were not enforced.
The entire episode stinks of anything but natural gas. While Moily may claim that system was followed, there is enough evidence out there that says otherwise.
After the 2G spectrum allocation scam of the UPA Government, another major telecom scandal in the allocation of 4G spectrum (BWA) has come to light by the recent CAG report. In fact, AAP leader and senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan has filed a PIL in the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of Reliance Industries’ telecom license and a through criminal investigation. Supreme Court had issued notice to Government and Reliance on that petition on 9th May 2014.
The factum of the scam is this. The UPA Government in March 2013 allowed a back-door entry of Reliance Jio Infocomm into voice telephony in violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the 2G case. This was done at the price discovered in 2001 of Rs 1,658 crores for a pan-India licence, which is the same price that was struck down by the Supreme Court in the 2G judgment because of having caused a huge loss to the public exchequer.
During May-June 2010 the auctions for 3G and 4G were concluded. The 3G auction fetched Rs 16,750.58 crore for 5+5 MHz spectrum in 2100 MHz (or 2.1 GHz) band. Thus, per MHz price worked out to be Rs 1,675 crore. Immediately, after the 3G auction, the 4G auction began which fetched Rs 12,847.77 crore for 20 MHz pan-India license in the 2300 MHz (or 2.3 GHz) band. This works out to be Rs 642.39 crore per MHz. This was so because all documents stated that 4G spectrum was for data services only, whereas 3G spectrum can be used for both data and voice telephony.
Infotel Broadband Services Pvt Ltd (IBSPL) emerged as the only company to have acquired pan-India 4G spectrum. IBSPL had an internet license since November 2007 and had just one subscriber with revenue of Rs 16.28 lakhs during 2009-10, and its authorized share capital was Rs 3 crore and the paid up capital was Rs 2.51 crore. Infotel Digicomm Pvt Ltd (IDPL) held 99.99% share of the IBSPL at the time of submission of application in March 2010.
Within hours of completion of 4G auction on 11.06.2010, IBSPL increased the authorised share capital from Rs 3 crore to Rs 6,000 crore. On 17.06.2010, the company authorized its Board of Directors to allot 475 crore equity share of Rs 10 each to Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) and 25 crore equity share of Rs 10 to Infotech Digicomm Pvt Ltd (IDPL) aggregating to the equity capital of Rs 5,000 crore. On the same day, the company also decided to change from a private company to Public Limited Company (Infotel Broadband Services Ltd). Thus, the company within a week of winning the 4G spectrum disposed off 95% shares to RIL while 5% was retained by IDPL. Much later in March 2013, the company was renamed as Reliance Jio Infocomm Pvt Ltd.
CAG has found that the Government did not protect its interest at the time of framing eligibility criteria for the 4G auction. It allowed participation of internet (ISP) licensees without ensuring adequate safeguards in terms of net-worth of the companies participating in the auction. It found that while a UAS licensee or even a new company without a license was allowed to participate in the 4G auction, but they had to pass through the test of net-worth in order to become eligible, but no such criteria was specified for the existing internet (ISP) licensees participating in 4G auction. CAG observed that this criterion was important even for ISP-A licensees as they had to participate in the bidding where the reserve price was fixed at Rs 1,750 crore per pan-India license for 20 MHz spectrum in 2.3 GHz band. The only company which won the pan-India 4G license, was an ISP-A licensee, Infotel Broadband Services Pvt Ltd (IBSPL), a HFCL promoted group company. CAG has stated that IBSPL was given the ISP-A license in November 2007, and it had just one leased-line subscribers as on December 2009 and total revenue of just Rs 16.28 lakh for FY 2009-10. The paid-up capital was just Rs 2.51 crore and 99.99 per cent of it was held by Infotel Digicom Pvt Ltd at the time of submission of application for the 4G auction in March 2010. Thus, this company could not be termed as a serious player. And there were no checks in-built in the auction process to eliminate such non-serious players, CAG has observed.
After the company was taken over Reliance Industries, the Government allowed it to provide voice telephony (which was earlier prohibited) without conducting a fresh auction. This was done at the rate of Rs 1,658 crore which was fixed in 2001, and had been struck down by the Supreme Court in the 2G case for causing huge loss to public exchequer. The CAG has now concluded that besides vitiating the auction process, an undue advantage of Rs 22,842 crore was given to RIL at the cost of exchequer. The relevant part of the CAG’s report is reproduced below: -
It was found that the basis of the decision i.e. payment of entry fee of Rs 1,658 crore by ISP licensee for a permission to Pan India provision of mobile voice services using BWA spectrum considered by the DoT Committee, Telecom Commission and the MOC&IT, was primarily intended to fill the gap between the eligibility criterion stipulated for participation in the 3G / BWA auction in 2010 as UAS / CMTS licensees had paid entry fee of Rs 1,658 crore while ISP licensees had paid only Rs 30 lakh.
The DoT Committee, Telecom Commission and the MOC&IT however ignored the fact that the quantum of entry fee i.e. Rs 1,658 crore was basically discovered in 2001 through the bidding for the 4th Cellular licenses. Market conditions since then have changed drastically, and this price needed to be modified to reflect the present value. Neither the DoT Committee / TC under the Chairmanship of the Secretary DoT nor the MOC&IT felt the need for revision of the price discovered in 2001 as the entry fee for UASL in 2013, even when the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had cancelled 122 licenses granted in 2008 on the basis of the same entry fee stating that it was impossible for them to approve the action of the DoT.
Therefore, by permitting ISPs to provide mobile voice service using BWA spectrum won in 2010 auction post-auction, the government has brought ISP licensees with BWA spectrum at par with UAS / CMTS 3G spectrum winners so far as provision of services are concerned – Voice, Data, etc., and post auction interpretation of such vital nature would appear to be arbitrary, inconsistent and not appropriate. Hence, IBSPL, now Reliance JioInfocomm, appeared to have been accorded undue advantage of Rs 22,842 crore i.e. the difference of the proportionate prices for 20 MHz block size in 2.1 GHz spectrum band (3G spectrum) and 2.3 GHz spectrum band (BWA spectrum) plus the Net Present Value of the entry fee for UASL at the end of FY 2009-10 (Rs 20,653 crore plus Rs 3,847 crore - Rs 1,658 crore). Besides, the sanctity of the entire auction process has been rendered vitiated due to post auction interpretations and interventions after three years. It was therefore no surprise that Reliance JioInfocomm was among the first group of companies which applied for UL immediately after introduction of the scheme and obtained the Letter of Intent (LoI). Had the spectrum blocks been specified and declared as liberalised spectrum blocks i.e. open for all technology / services in the NIA in February 2010, there was no doubt that bidders would have taken informed decision for putting up their bid and the market discovered price would have been significantly different for 3G and BWA spectrum.
Therefore, the Aam Aadmi Party demands the NDA government to immediately cancel the telecom license and allotment of 4G spectrum given to Reliance Industries and also a registration of an FIR by the CBI for a through criminal investigation into this scam involving Reliance Industries and the UPA Government.
Petroleum Ministry document leak: It’s a Rs 10,000 cr scam, claims accused Santanu Saikia; R-ADAG office raided
The dramatic claim comes after police arrested five senior executives from top energy firms and two consultants, including Sanatnu Saikia in the Petroleum Ministry 'leak' case.
A key accused in the corporate espionage case today claimed that it was a Rs 10,000 crore scam that he was trying to uncover as police said documents seized from corporate executives related to “national security” that can attract Official Secrets Act provisions.
Meanwhile, a local court remanded the five arrested corporate executives in police custody till February 24 for further questioning. Delhi Police also conducted raids here and in nearby Noida looking for stolen documents from offices of petroleum companies.
Santanu Saikia, a former journalist, now running an energy consultant running a website, claimed to reporters outside an Crime Branch office that it was a Rs 10,000 crore scam, which he was trying to uncover. “Please quote me,” he said as policemen took him in for interrogation.
Reacting to his claim, Petroleum Minister Dharmendra Pradhan said Saikia was saying such things for covering up his own defence.
“Let him spill out all the information he has. The primary accusation is that somebody stole the papers from the ministry. Police is investigating. Anybody has the right to tell everything to the police,” he said.
Pradhan said police is doing an independent job and everything will be clear after investigation. Law will take its course, whoever they may be, he said when asked about the arrest of executives of private companies.
Producing the five corporate executives arrested yesterday before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Sanjay Khanagwal, the police said, “National interest was taken for a ride in the case.
“Documents related to national security have also been recovered. This may attract charges under the Official Secrets Act.”
The five–Shailesh Saxena from RIL, Vinay Kumar from Essar, KK Naik from Cairns, Subhash Chandra from Jubilant Energy and Rishi Anand from Reliance ADAG–who were produced in the court in police custody till February 24 for further questioning.
The police told the court that they have to consult the concerned ministries regarding the documents which have been recovered from the possession of the accused and their custodial interrogation was required to confront them with the same.
These five accused were procuring these sensitive documents at the behest of their senior officials, some of whom might be interrogated in the ongoing investigation, police said.
The advocates appearing for these five accused vehemently opposed the police’s plea seeking five days police custody, contending that their clients have been illegally detained since February 18 and 19.
The defence counsel also contended that there was nothing to be recovered from their clients and the police have not told the court regarding the specific allegations against these accused.
With the arrest of these five accused, the total number of arrests in the case rose to 12. Seven others were produced in the court yesterday out of whom four were sent to police custody till February 23 and three were remanded to judicial custody for two weeks.
Police sources said that Subhash Chandra, a senior executive with Jubilant Energy, who was arrested along with four other top officials of energy companies yesterday, was taken to Jain’s office in the morning.
After searching Jain’s office, the police team took him to the Noida office of Jubilant Energy. His office and some other rooms were searched by the police to recover stolen documents.
Office of another petroleum company whose executive was also one of them arrested was also raided by the police. Laptop and computers of the arrested officials have been seized by investigators which would be sent for forensic analysis.
Asked about the issue, Delhi Police Commissioner B S Bassi said, “We have searched places which were necessary for the course of investigation. We may further raid places as our aim is to reach the bottom of the whole thing.”
The police chief also said that investigation is on in the case and it will end only when a charge sheet will be filed.
“We need to know since how long this has been going on and who all benefited from it,” said a senior official.
According to police, all these company executives allegedly received stolen documents which have been recovered by police teams during raids from their establishments.
Saxena is Manager, corporate affairs, Reliance Industries Limited(RIL); Chandra is senior executive, Jubilant Energy; Anand is DGM, Reliance ADAG; Vinay is DGM, Essar and Naik is GM, Cairns India.
They have been booked under IPC sections 120 B (criminal conspiracy) and 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property).
The case FIR, produced in a local court yesterday said an input on the National Gas Grid for the Finance Minister’s Budget speech of 2015-16 is among the various “secret” documents recovered from the accused.
The office of Reliance ADAG group at a premier five-star hotel here was also raided today by police in this connection.
“We are basically looking for the stolen documents from the establishments linked to the 12 people we have arrested so far. Searches are being conducted at various places in Delhi and NCR,” said a senior police official associated with the probe.
The raids have been confined to this region and not being carried out “across the country” as was speculated, he added.
Sources, meanwhile, said that police had also stumbled upon another module operated separately from the those arrested so far and their ‘area of operation’ was another plum ministry.
They added that a junior level officer and some more corporate executives are under scanner in this connection and arrests are expected by Monday.
The apex court posted the next hearing for March 20 during which it would examine the RIL's response to the CAG report that had sought disallowance of $357.16 million (about Rs 2,179 crore) expenditure RIL incurred on drilling of wells and payments to contractors in KG-D6.
Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar said the Centre can make comments on the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) recommendations and findings only after getting the report of the Parliament's Public Account Committee which is examining it.
The order was passed during a brief hearing of petitions filed in 2013 by senior CPI leader Gurudas Dasgupta and NGO Common Cause, challenging the then UPA government decision to double the price of natural gas from $4.2 to $8.4 per mmbtu and seeking cancellation of RIL's contract for exploration of oil and gas from the KG basin.
The third PIL on the issue has been filed by advocate M L Sharma. A bench headed by Justice T S Thakur also allowed Dasgupta and other petitioners to file their response to the NDA government's fresh guidelines which would "supersede" the earlier UPA dispensation's policy on price fixation for natural gas, including that from KG basin, which has been the bone of contention between the Centre and RIL.
The Solictor General on November 14, 2014 had said before the bench, which also comprised justices J Chelameswar and Kurian Joseph, that the 'new domestic natural gas policy' was approved by the government on October 18 raising natural gas price to $5.61 per mmbtu from November 1 and had said that "recommendation of the Rangarajan Committee would not be given effect".
The Rangarajan formula on gas pricing was approved by the previous UPA government. Rangarajan was Chairman, Economic Advisory Council to the then Prime Minister.
In its second audit of RIL's eastern offshore KG-D6 block, the CAG on November 28, 2014 recommended disallowing the company from recovering $279.8 million in cost of three wells as well as a part of expenditure the firm had incurred in area which was improperly declared discovery area.
The CAG, in its report tabled in the Parliament, found irregular payment of $427.48 million to contractors, of which it sought disallowance of at least $77.36 million cost. Earlier RIL's senior advocate Harish Salve had said "he is not happy with the new guidelines (on gas pricing)".
While the Centre has maintained that the issue raised by Dasgupta has been addressed with the new guidelines, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, had said several other issues needed to be argued.
He had said that the draft CAG report itself suggested that RIL "hugely over-estimated" the reserves of the KG gas block and other irregularities are cited.
Among the other issues, the NGO has alleged that fraud was committed by RIL requiring government to take back the field and there was a need for court-monitored probe on the issue.
Dasgupta and the NGO had said government should be asked not to make "any further increase" in the price of gas produced by RIL from KG basin.
RIL has refuted the allegation of extraneous consideration for the increase in the gas price from $4.2 to $8.4 per mmbtu for the gas taken from the existing fields like KG D-6 basin. RIL had submitted that the gas output from KG basin has fallen to 8 mscmd against expected 80 mscmd due to "technical reason".
M Veerappa Moily, the then Union Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas, was also named as one of the respondents in the petitions. The PILs have also sought imposition of penalty on private parties for failure in adhering to commitments.
The petitioners have sought a direction for a thorough audit by CAG of the working of the production-sharing contract (PSC) governing KG block, gold plating by RIL, underproduction by RIL and all related issues.
The former CPI MP had alleged collusion between the government and the company, saying RIL "is holding country's energy security to ransom". He also said that natural resources belong to the citizens and the government.
The Common Cause has supported Dasgupta's arguments and referred to controversial intercepted telephonic conversations between former corporate lobbyist Niira Radia with others to support the allegation of collusion.
The NGO has urged that Centre should wait for the outcome of the two petitions pending before the apex court.
Kejriwal’s latest: Reliance blackmailing govt, Mukesh Ambani running India
REAL STORY OF Late DHIRUBHAI
AMBANI of Reliance Industries
QUESTIONS FOR MONEY – PARLIAMENTARY ACTS/LEGISLATIONS FOR ????-improper functioning of democracy in india
the vohra committee report has proved the criminalisation of politics in india. There are many number of criminals in the parliament & state legislatures. Some of those criminals are cabinet ministers as well as members of vital parliamentary committees. Thereby, they are in a position to manipulate , enact laws favouring , benefitting the criminals their cronies.
THREAT TO INDIA'S SECURITY BY CORPORATE CRIMINALS
Now, the number of
common people dying due to starvation , lack of health care is more than in a
war field. The threat to unity & integrity of india is more from the
corporate sector than pakistan or china.
COVERING-UP CORPORATE FRAUDS IN INDIA
List of Reliance Scams
Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) is an Indian conglomerate holding company headquartered in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. The company operates in five major segments: exploration and production, refining and marketing, petrochemicals, retail and telecommunications.
Seminar magazine (2003) detailed Reliance founder Dhirubhai Ambani’s proximity to politicians, his enmity with Bombay Dyeing’s Nusli Wadia, the exposes by the Indian Express and Arun Shourie about illegal imports by the company and overseas share transactions by shell companies, and the botched attempt to acquire Larsen & Toubro.
As early as 1996, Outlook magazine addressed other controversies related to fake and switched shares; insider trading; and a nexus with the state-owned Unit Trust of India. Five main allegations concerning Reliance, and which have plunged the Indian capital markets into a period of uncertainty unsurpassed since the days of the securities scam were (1) Reliance issued fake shares (2) It switched shares sent for transfer by buyers to make illegal profits (3) It has indulged in insider trading in shares (4) It established a nexus with the Unit Trust of India to raise huge sums of money to the detriment of UTI subscribers (5) It attempted to monopolise the private telecom services market through front companies.
Stock market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) issued a show-cause notice to Reliance Industries Ltd following a probe into alleged insider trading in Reliance Petroleum Ltd (RPL) shares in November 2007. Sebi probed transactions by entities that participated in and led to some three months of speculative rally after which the RPL stock surged to an all-time intraday high of Rs295 on 1 November 2007. In a separate and independent investigation related to the same issue, the income-tax (I-T) department looked at possible tax evasion by a dozen entities that Mukesh Ambani-owned RIL acknowledged to be its “agents”.
In Jan 2011, Sebi barred Anil Ambani and four other officials of Reliance Group—until recently known as the Reliance-Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (R-Adag)—companies from investing in listed shares until December 2011. Two group firms, Reliance Infrastructure Ltd (R-Infra) and Reliance Natural Resources Ltd (RNRL) were barred from making such investment until December 2012. According to Sebi’s investigations, R-Infra and RNRL were prima facie responsible for misrepresenting the nature of investments in yield management certificates/deposits, and the profits and losses in their annual reports for the fiscal years 2007, 2008 and 2009. It also found misuse of FII regulations. The then minister of state for finance Namo Narain Meena, on 1 December 2009, in a written response to a query raised in the Upper House of Parliament, said that three firms of R-Adag—R-Infra, RNRL and RCom—had violated overseas debt norms. These end-use violations were observed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) regarding two ECB transactions—of $360 million and $150 million—by R-Infra.
In another case, Sebi, settled a dispute with Reliance Securities Ltd (RSL) with a consent order on June 2011, under which the brokerage will spend Rs1 crore within six months on investor education and not add any new clients for 45 days starting 15 June. In the settlement, it was also added that the brokerage will also pay Rs25 lakh towards settlement charges. This order followed a Sebi investigation into RSL’s books and accounts for fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2008, which said that it had allegedly violated various clauses of Sebi stock brokers and sub-brokers regulations. The Sebi inquiry cited 20 irregularities, including the brokerage not informing clients about various charges at the time of opening accounts. RSL sought power of attorney in the name of Reliance Commodities Ltd from clients and used this to debit clients’ bank accounts, purchase and sell post office deposits and government of India bonds among other transactions. Brokerage, not fully equipped to handle its customer base at the time, used the name Reliance Money at all its offices and on employee visiting cards, instead of Reliance Securities, which was the registered trading member, leading to confusion. Brokerage was found to have received funds from other client bank accounts other than the ones available to it, thus failing to have a sound third-party check on the receipt of payments. RSL had failed to update client details despite the stock exchanges pointing this out in their inspection reports. The Sebi inquiry also said RSL collected higher securities transaction tax from its clients in 2006-2008, allotted more than one terminal in the same segment for a single user, and also collected cheques in the name of Reliance Money. Brokerage also did not maintain clear segregation between broking and other activities of group companies. Further, there were frequent disruptions in the brokerage’s trading platform, which showed connectivity problems at the applicant’s end.
Reliance Telecom was charged with criminal conspiracy to cause criminal breach of trust by a public servant, criminal conspiracy under section 120-B, cheating under section 420 and forgery under sections 468 and 471. Reliance Telecom was booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Resulting in to arrest of Reliance Group's corporate executives Gautam Doshi, Surendra Pipara and Hari Nayar.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a chargesheet in a Mumbai court against Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and four retired employees of National Insurance Company Limited (NICL), including a former CMD, under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act for criminal conspiracy and other charges. Acting on a reference from CVC in March, 2005, the CBI started probing the conspiracy that led to the filing of the chargesheet on December 9, 2011. The 2005 complaint had alleged irregularities in issuance of insurance policies — for coverage of default payments — by NICL to RIL. Chargesheet also mentioned criminal offences with dishonest intention and causing wrongful loss totaling Rs 147.41 crore to NICL and wrongful gain to the private telecom provider.
Two retired senior officials of National Insurance Company Limited and 11 others were awarded varying jail terms by a Delhi court in Jan 2014.
A business jet owned by Reliance Industries (RIL) was grounded by The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on 22 March 2014 during a surprise inspection, for carrying expired safety equipment on board; its pilot was also suspended for flying without a licence.
In May 2014, ONGC moved to Delhi High Court accusing RIL of pilferage of 18 billion cubic metres from its gas-producing block in the Krishna Godavari basin. Subsequently, the two companies agreed to form an independent expert panel to probe any pilferage.
The Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) was supposed to relinquish 25% of the total area outside the discoveries in 2004 and 2005, as per the Production Sharing Contract (PSC). However, the entire block was declared as a discovery area and RIL was allowed to retain it. In 2011, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) criticized the Oil Ministry for this decision. The CAG also faulted RIL for limiting the competition in contracts, stating that RIL awarded a $1.1 billion contract to Aker on a single-bid basis.
A PIL filed in the Supreme Court by an NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation, through Prashant Bhushan, challenged the grant of pan-India licence to RJIL by the Government of India. The PIL alleged that RJIL was allowed to provide voice telephony along with its 4G data service, by paying an additional fees of just INR16580 million (US$280 million) which was arbitrary and unreasonable, and contributed to a loss of INR228420 million (US$3.8 billion) to the exchequer.
The CAG in its draft report alleged rigging of the auction mechanism, whereby an unknown ISP, Infotel Broadband Services Pvt Ltd, acquired the spectrum by bidding 5000 times its net worth, after which the company was sold to Reliance Industries.
Editorial : Match Fixing / Judgement Fixing by JUDGEs & Police
Read following actual cases at the below mentioned web sites , see how shamelessly some of our police & Judges compromise their official positions. It is high time to kick out such corrupt police & Judges from office. The Honest few left in Police & Judicial service must get hold of their corrupt colleagues.
Jai8 Hind. Vande Mataram.
Match Fixing by Judges & Police :
CJI a Criminal
Half of former CJIs Corrupt :
SEX Crimes by Judges :
A – Z of Manipulation of Indian Legal System
3rd degree Torture by Doctors & Police
Judges helping Criminals
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761,HUDCO FIRST STAGE ,
OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSURU – 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA
Cell : 91 8970318202
Home page :
A Member of Amnesty International