Delhi HC allows Smoking in Films - Quashes Ban

The Delhi High Court Friday quashed the central government's notification banning smoking in films on grounds that it violates the fundamental rights of filmmakers.

A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed that banning smoking in films violated filmmakers' fundamental rights of freedom of expression and speech.

The union ministry of health and family welfare had in May 2005 proposed the ban by notifying the Cigarette and Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Amendment Rules 2005.

In another notification, the ministry said the rules would come into effect from Oct 2, 2005. This had been challenged by Bollywood director and producer Mahesh Bhatt in September 2005.

SEBI amends SEBI (DIP) guidelines on Non-Convertible Debentures

SEBI amends SEBI (DIP) guidelines on Non-Convertible Debentures

SEBI (DIP) Guidelines, 2000, have been amended by Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) which has put in place a framework to enable a listed company make a combined offering of Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs) with warrants to QIBs, under the Qualified Institutions Placement mechanism. Qualified Institutional Buyers can subscribe to the combined offering of NCDs with warrants or to the individual instruments, either NCDs or warrants, where separate books are run for NCDs/warrants.

The step was taken in wake of a proposal in the current year’s budget to enhance the tradability of Domestic Convertible Bonds (DCBs) which required a mechanism that can enable investors to separate the embedded equity option from the convertible bond and trade it separately. This mechanism further requires basic enablers like existence of long tenor callable Credit Derivatives market and ability to borrow stock for long tenors to enable short selling.

It was stated by SEBI that it has carried out the amendments after consultations with market participants to explore alternate structures, which would yield the same benefits as that of DCBs to the issuer and enhance the suite of products from the investors point of view.

Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Bill 2008 passed by the Parliament

The Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Bill 2008 has been passed by the Parliament.

The Limited Liability Partnership format is an alternative corporate business vehicle that provides the benefits of limited liability of a company but allows its members the flexibility of organizing their internal management on the basis of a mutually arrived agreement, as is the case in a partnership firm.

For a long time, a need has been felt to provide for a business format that would combine the flexibility of a partnership and the advantages of limited liability of a company at a low compliance cost. As proposed in the Bill, LLP shall be a body corporate and a legal entity separate from its partners. It will have perpetual succession. While the LLP will be a separate legal entity, liable to the full extent of its assets, the liability of the partners would be limited to their agreed contribution in the LLP. Further, no partner would be liable on account of the independent or unauthorized actions of other partners, thus allowing individual partners to be shielded from joint liability created by another partner’s wrongful business decisions or misconduct.

Today, the world is in the grip of an unprecedented financial crisis, which is adversely affecting economies of most of the countries, including our own. In such a situation, availability of LLP as an alternative business vehicle to our trade and industry will be an important step. Service industry has grown considerably in India and it accounts for nearly half of our GDP. We believe that the LLPs would further contribute to the growth of the service industry in the future.

President gives assent to Judges Salary hike

Supreme Court Judges and High Court Chief Justices to get Rs. 90,000/- per month- Other High Court Judges - Rs. 80,000/- per month

Judges of Supreme Court and High Court can now take a sigh of relief as the President gave her assent to the ordinance late last week. The proposed hike in salaries also means a substantial increase in pension for judges. Judges are entitled to 50 per cent of their last drawn salary as monthly pension.

The President's New Year gift for the judiciary means a revised salary Rs 1 lakh for the Chief Justice of India, Rs 90,000 for Supreme Court judges and High Court chief justices and Rs 80,000 for HC judges.

Source : PTI

Also Check out >> Latest News Headlines on Supreme Court of India

Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit against Satyam Computer Services Ltd.

New York, United States, Thursday, January 15, 2009 -- (Business Wire India) --

Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (www.pomerantzlaw.com) ("Pomerantz") has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against Satyam Computer Services Limited ("Satyam")(NYSE:SAY) and certain officers of the Company. The class action, (Case No. 09-CV-00337) was filed on behalf of purchasers of the American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") of Satyam between January 6, 2004 through January 6, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In addition to Satyam, the complaint names as defendants the admitted ringleader of this fraud, former Chairman B. Ramalinga Raju; his brother, B. Rama Raju, the Company's former Managing Director and CEO; and the former Chief Financial Officer, Srinivas Vadlamani. All of these individuals have been arrested by the Indian authorities for their complicity in this fraud.

The complaint alleges a multi-year massive fraud by these defendants, which has been admitted to by defendant Raju, in which these individuals cooked Satyam's books by, among other things, concocting $1 billion of cash that didn't exist, and overstating revenues and profits. The egregiousness of the fraud is evident from Raju's admissions in a letter to the Satyam board. Raju admitted that for the second quarter 1998 alone, Satyam reported $555 million in revenues when the actual number was $434 million; $136 million in profit when the correct number was only $12.5 million; and a reported hefty $1.1 billion in available cash, when it had a mere $66 million. Raju acknowledged that the fraudulent scheme "simply reached unmanageable proportions," which he likened to "riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten."

The complaint further alleges that disclosure of this stunning fraud materially impacted the price of the Company's ADRs. Indeed, trading in the Company's ADRs was briefly halted after the fraud was revealed, and the ADRs are now currently trading between $1 and $2, a precipitous drop from the Company's 52-week high of $29.84.

If you purchased or acquired the ADRs of Satyam during the Class Period, you have until March 9, 2009 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. Lead plaintiffs must meet certain legal requirements. Shareholders outside the United States may join the action. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have any questions, please contact Shaheen Rushd (srushd@pomlaw.com) of the Pomerantz Firm at 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.

The Pomerantz Firm, which has offices in New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Columbus, Ohio and the San Francisco Bay area, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of class members.