229 rapes, 8 gangrapes recorded in Mumbai in 8 months

Financially troubled Yes Bank on Saturday reported a standalone net loss of ₹ 18,560.31 crore for the third quarter of the financial year 2019-20. This is amongst the biggest losses reported by the India Inc.

At present, the private lender is under a moratorium and is controlled by the office of the administrator appointed by the RBI.

The bank had reported a net profit of ₹1,001.85 crore during the corresponding period of the previous financial year.

Besides, the bank's total income fell to Rs 6,268.50 crore from Rs 8,849.81 crore earned during the October-December quarter of the previous fiscal.

On consolidated basis, Yes Bank reported a net loss of ₹18,564.24 crore for the December quarter from a net profit of Rs 1,000.57 crore in the corresponding period of the previous fiscal.

The independent auditor's review report on the consolidated results pointed out that there is a "material uncertainty related to going concern" of the bank.

"The said assumption of going concern is dependent upon the degree of success of the final reconstruction scheme, the quantum of capital infused into the bank and the bank's ability to stabalise its deposit balances post withdrawal of the moratorium by the RBI. Our conclusion is not modified in respect of this matter," the auditor said.

Furthermore, the bank recognised additional loans of ₹ 5,150.2 crore as NPAs and related provisioning requirements of ₹772.5 crore for the quarter ended December 31, 2019.

The bank has recognised an additional provisions of ₹15,422.0 crore in the quarter ended December 31, 2019.

Last week, the RBI placed Yes Bank under moratorium and capped the withdrawal limit at ₹50,000 till next Wednesday.

Additionally, the central bank also superseded Yes Bank's board of directors and appointed former SBI CFO Prashant Kumar as its administrator.

Meanwhile, Kumar has been appointed as the new Chief Executive Officer of the financially troubled lender. He will take over his new responsibilities once the moratorium on the stressed lender is lifted on Wednesday.

Apart from Kumar, Sunil Mehta, former non-executive Chairman of Punjab National Bank, will take over as the non-executive Chairman of Yes Bank.

Other board members include Mahesh Krishnamurthy and Atul Bheda, both as non-executive Directors.

Additionally, six private lenders have joined the SBI to rescue Yes Bank with Federal Bank committing ₹300 crore by subscribing to 30 crore shares of ₹2 each at a premium of ₹8 per equity share.

The six private lenders have now committed an investment of ₹3,700 crore in the cash-strapped private sector bank.

On Friday, ICICI Bank and Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) Ltd had announced that they will be investing ₹1,000 crore each in Yes Bank's equity. Axis Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank will be investing ₹ 600 crore and ₹500 crore, respectively, while Bandhan Bank will invest ₹300 crore.

The SBI board has already approved up to 49 per cent stake purchase in Yes Bank, as per the RBI's reconstruction scheme for the lender. It had said on Thursday that an investment of ₹7,250 crore would be made in Yes Bank to pick up₹ 725 crore equity shares.

New Delhi, Jul 21: The Supreme Court has asked the Ministry of Finance to look into a plea which claimed a loss of hundreds of crore every day, as the public sector banks are not invoking personal guarantees of big corporates who have defaulted on loans.

A bench comprising Justice R. F. Nariman and Navin Sinha asked the petitioners, Saurabh Jain and Rahul Sharma, who filed the PIL, to move the Finance Ministry with a representation within two weeks. The top court observed that the issue is important and the ministry should respond after the petitioner has made the representation before it. The matter had come up for hearing on Monday.

"We are of the view that at page 115 of the Writ Petition it has been made clear that the Ministry of Finance itself has, by a Circular, directed personal guarantees issued by promoters/managerial personnel to be invoked. According to the petitioners, despite this Circular, Public Sector Undertakings continue not to invoke such guarantees resulting in huge loss not only to the public exchequer but also to the common man", said the bench in its order.

Senior advocate Manan Mishra and advocate Durga Dutt, represented the petitioners.

Mishra contended before the bench that the statistics establish the public sector banks incurred a loss of approximately Rs 1.85 lakh crore in a financial year, and the banks did not take action to invoke personal guarantees of the biggest corporate defaulters.

The bench observed that since the petitioners claim the public sector undertakings are not complying with this circular, "We think you should first go to the ministry," said the bench.

Mishra argued before the bench that the loans from a common man are recovered through a mechanism where officials go through even the minutest detail, but promoters, chairpersons and other senior level functionaries of the big corporates find it convenient to get away by defaulting on loans.

The bench told the petitioner's counsel that the Finance Ministry has already issued a notification on this matter, and the petitioners should seek response from the ministry, and then move the top court. Mishra submitted before the bench to issue a direction to the Finance Ministry to give a response on their representation.

The bench said, "We allow the petitioners, at this stage, to withdraw this Writ Petition and approach the Ministry of Finance with a representation in this behalf. The representation will be made within a period of two weeks from today. The Ministry of Finance is directed to reply to the said representation within a period of four weeks after receiving such representation. With these observations, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn to do the needful."

Mishra contended before the bench seeking liberty to come back after a reply from the Finance Ministry. Justice Nariman said this option is open for petitioners after a decision has been taken by the ministry. "We will hear you", added Justice Nariman.

New Delhi, Jan 7: When a reign of terror was unleashed by "masked goons" in the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) on Sunday, Delhi Police registered two cases against varsity students union president Aishe Ghosh, who was badly injured in the attack, within a span of five minutes.

The registration of cases on two separate complaints against Ghosh and other students filed by JNU security department on January 3 and January 4 were registered on Sunday night when the violence was on, triggering questions about the motive behind the timing.

While the FIRs against Ghosh and others were registered between 8.44 pm and 8.49 pm after the JNUSU president was admitted to AIIMS, an FIR on the Sunday violence was registered on Monday at 5.36 am against unknown persons. The Sunday violence case has been transferred to Crime Branch for further investigations.

Questions are being raised over the registration of FIRs on Sunday while the complaints were filed on the previous days. Students allege that it was an afterthought from the police and authorities, as a nationwide outrage erupted as soon as the violence was reported.

Delhi Police is under attack for not coming to the aid of students targeted by the mob of ABVP activists armed with iron rods and sticks who went on a rampage on the campus. While no single person in the Sunday violence was arrested, the police are also accused of being a "mute spectator" by allowing the rioters to leave the campus without being arrested.

In its complaints, the JNU Security Department has alleged that Ghosh and others entered into a verbal and physical scuffle with security guards, including women, when officials tried to open the Centre for Information System (CIS) that was blocked by students protesting against the fee hike and registration process.

While the January 3 complaint claims that the students switched off the power supply to the CIS and evicted staff forcefully, the January 4 complaint alleged that they damaged the information system.

They also claimed the students damaged the servers, made it dysfunctional, severely damaged optic fibre cables and broke the biometric system in the CIS. The complaint also cited a Supreme Court order that prevented any protest within 100 metres of Administration Block and claimed the students violated the direction.

The FIR filed on Sunday violence on the basis of the statement of Inspector Anand Yadav said that the first phase of violence was reported at 3.45 pm when "40-50 unidentified" people who had "covered their faces" attacked students in Periyar Hostel and the situation was brought under control.

However at around 7 pm, "50-60 people with rods in their hands" targeted students in Sabarmati Hostel in which students were attacked and public property destroyed.

The FIR said that students were injured but skipped the mention of the attack on teachers, who were injured. At least two faculty members Sucharita Sen and Ameet Parameswaran were taken to AIIMS while several other teachers suffered minor injuries.