Pages

Wednesday 21 December 2011

Secretarial Standards (Amendment) Bill 2011

The main highlights in the Secretarial Standards (Amendment) Bill 2011 is:                                                                                
It provides provisions for the formation of the LLPs and to take benefits of provisions provided under the LLP Act.



Monday 12 December 2011

Today's One Pager


INDIAN GOLD MARKETS

The story of gold has a deeper message, one that has none of the transitory qualities of what we choose to use as money. Seen in this broader sense, the story of gold has no ending.” _ Peter Bernstein in The Power of Gold

When compared in world level India is considered to be as the largest consumer of Gold. Until 1990, Gold Control Act, huge quantity of gold was entering into India either through legal or illegal means. The private holders used to hold around 10 tola bars of gold which would be converted into jewellery during family functions.  Investment in 22 carat gold still beats the security markets and it still remains  the favoured mode of investment. This attitude of the people has paved way for the banks to bring in the Gold Deposit Scheme, and even sale of gold through Banks.

As per the report of the World Gold Council in November 2011, it is observed that on a yearly basis the increase of demand for gold in India is around 15% despite the increase in the value by around 46% and the highest gold price close during the year was at INR. 90421.97/oz on November 30, 2011.

The World Gold Council reports: “In the longer term, we are confident that India’s favorable demographic trends, the growing affluent middle class and declining age profile, should ensure a buoyant consumption growth.”

India produces only 0.5% of its annual gold consumption and the remaining is imported. The import of gold is roughly around 700 Tons per annum.

Market condition: When compared to the previous year the percentage of sale of gold in quantity has gone down due to increase in the prices, however this has not affected the profits of the players in the gold market as the people still try to buy gold with all the amount that they possess

History of gold during inflation: In1970’s gold was valued as per the gold standards. The inflation during 1970’s was up 306% and the value of the gold was officialy $35 an ounce. Despite the increase in inflation the gold which was priced at $850 per ounce in 1980 had dropped down to $300 in 2001 losing 65% of its value. On a study it is observed that inflation does not necessarily translate into higher gold prices.

Demand for Gold:

Despite the risk of fall in Gold prices it still has its market due to:

-         fear of inflation
-         the fear that most of the commercial bonds or other paper documents may lose their intrinsic value.
-         Looking at the history it is observed that despite the fall of its prices on a temporary basis it is believed that the prices of Gold would continue to increase.



Monday 5 December 2011

Case Study

                                                 Amul sues Nestle

A case on Amul Vs. Nestle

 

One Pager

FDI IN RETAIL IS IT BENEFICIAL TO INDIA

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh projects FDI in retail as a boon for the agricultural sector. Unfortunately, if you examine the realities, it will spell a death knell for farming. It will be the beginning of an end for Indian farmers.
It has happened in the United States. Ever since big retail - dominated by multi-brand retailers like Wal-Mart - entered the market, farmers have disappeared, and poverty has increased. So has hunger.
Today, not more than 700,000 farmers remain on the farm in America. Poverty has grown, and hunger has broken past 14-years record.
In Europe, despite the dominance of the big retail, every minute one farmer quits agriculture. This is because farmer's income across US/EU is on a downslide.
Though FDI in retail trade is restricted till recent announcement, but the Government of India has a more liberal policy towards wholesale trade, franchising, and commission agents’ services, thus preparing the ground for FDI in retail as well. Foreign retailers have already started operations in India through various routes: (i) joint ventures where the Indian firm is an export house; (ii) franchising (eg. Kentucky Fried Chicken, Nike); (iii) sourcing of supplies from small-scale sector; (iv) ‘cash and carry’ operations (Giant in Hyderabad, Metro in Bangalore); (v) non-store formats – direct marketing (Amway). Large international retailers of home furnishing and apparels such as Pottery Barn, The Gap and Ralph Lauren have made India one of their major sourcing hubs. Up to 100 per cent FDI is allowed in ‘cash and carry’ operations. The Great Wholesaling Club Ltd is one such example. In February 2002, the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, opened a global sourcing office in Bangalore. In November 2006, it announced its entry under a joint venture with the Indian corporation Bharti. For the time being, Bharti is to own the chain of front-end retail stores, while the two firms will have an equal share in a firm that will engage in wholesale, logistics, supply chain and sourcing activities. This is seen as a preliminary step by Wal-Mart pending the removal of all restrictions on FDI in retail trade.

The reasons given by the Government for allowing FDI in retail:

Why is the government so keen in inviting FDI in the retail sector? Let us look at some arguments made by the Government for allowing FDI:
 (i) “Only a few global firms possess proprietary expertise in retail trade. They would not transfer their expertise to local firms unless they were allowed to operate in the domestic market.”

Reality: In the literature on retail, we could not trace the existence of any cutting edge proprietary expertise – either technical or managerial.
(ii) “The government needs FDI to meet its foreign exchange requirements.”

Reality: Because of large capital inflows, the Government of India is today burdened with huge and growing foreign exchange reserves. By April 13, 2007, the foreign exchange reserves had swollen to $203 billion. The argument for FDI in retail to attract foreign exchange is not tenable.
(iii) “Only global retailers can satisfy the rising and varied demands of Indian consumers.”

Reality: It has yet to be shown which product or service is being offered by foreign retail firms is unavailable at present to Indian consumers, or cannot be provided without FDI. Moreover, the alleged benefits of ‘consumer choice’ are being inflated. Indeed, the availability of excessively wide choice makes it so complex and time-consuming for the consumer to decide that it leads to stronger loyalty to particular brands.
At one side Government is giving reason for allowing FDI in retail that it will improve supply chain management and avoid the wastage of food because lack of cold storage as the global firms have expertise in supply chain management and they will establish cold  storage in India, but why Government cannot establish more   cold storage or improve supply chain management. This is only because they are indulging in more politics than our Country.
Despite the destruction of farming globally by the supermarkets, the Ministry for Commerce and Industry is gung-ho about the virtues of foreign direct investment in multi-brand retailing, which means allowing the big players like Wal-Mart and Tesco to swamp the Indian market.

Sunday 13 November 2011

Responsibilities of the Directors: Hon'ble SC has held as below, over ruling a decision by the hon Delhi HC..

A director of a firm cannot be held liable for the wrongs committed by his company unless it is proved that he was involved in the irregularities, the Supreme Court has held. This court has repeatedly held that in case of a director, complaint should specifically spell out how and in what manner the director was in charge of or was responsible to the accused company for conduct of its business and mere bald statement that he or she was in-charge of and was responsible to the company for conduct of its business is not sufficient, a bench of justices P Sathasivam and Jasti Chelameswar said. The court passed the order while quashing criminal proceedings against a former director of Apparel Export Promotion Council in a cheque bounce case. The bench also held that a former director cannot be prosecuted in a case of bouncing of a cheque if it has been issued by the company after he ceased to be on its board member. The court set aside the Delhi High Court order which had dismissed the plea of the director for quashing the criminal proceedings. The counsel for the petitioner had pleaded that the director had ceased to be part of the company on the date when the cheque was issued by the firm and that the appelant could not be held liable for it getting dishonoured. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the high court and we are satisfied that the appellant has made out a case for quashing the criminal proceedings, the bench said, adding that it was established that the petitioner had resigned from the company as a director in 1998 while the cheque had been issued by it in 2004.