Isareli PM Netanyahu faces corruption charges, refuses to quit

New Delhi, Jun 18: Reliance Industries Ltd on Thursday said it has sold a 2.32 per cent stake in its digital unit to Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) for Rs 11,367 crore, taking the cumulative fund raising to about Rs 1.16 lakh crore in two months.

Starting with Facebook Inc on April 22, Reliance has sold almost 25 per cent of equity in Jio Platforms - the maximum reports suggest the company intends to dilute to financial investors.

The investment by Saudi sovereign wealth fund is "at an equity value of Rs 4.91 lakh crore and an enterprise value of Rs 5.16 lakh crore", the company said in a statement.

With this investment, Jio Platforms has raised Rs 115,693.95 crore from some of the leading global investment powerhouses at a time when the world is deeply impacted by the coronavirus pandemic, resulting in a recession kind of environment for the global economy.

"With the addition of PIF's investment, Jio Platforms has established partnerships with a marquee set of global financial investors, who will contribute to establishing the Digital Society vision for India," the statement said.

Jio Platforms houses India's biggest telecom firm by subscribers, Reliance Jio. With more than 388 million users, Jio has forced out several rivals and driven consolidation in the sector since entering the market in 2016 with free voice services and cut-price data.

Over the past two months, billionaire Mukesh Ambani's oil-to-telecom conglomerate has announced the sale of about $14 billion of assets, completed a Rs 53,124 crore rights issue and slowed the run rate of new investment by a quarter.

These will help Reliance meet its target of paying off Rs 1.61 lakh crore of net debt by the end of the year.
This is PIF's largest investment into the Indian economy to date.

Ambani, chairman and managing director of Reliance Industries, said, "We at Reliance have enjoyed a long and fruitful relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for many decades. From oil economy, this relationship is now moving to strengthen India's New oil (data-driven) economy, as is evident from PIF's investment into Jio Platforms."

Yasir Al-Rumayyan, governor of PIF, commented: "We are delighted to be investing in an innovative business which is at the forefront of the transformation of the technology sector in India. We believe that the potential of the Indian digital economy is very exciting and that Jio Platforms provides us with an excellent opportunity to gain access to that growth."

"This investment will also enable us to generate significant long-term commercial returns for the benefit of Saudi Arabia's economy and our country's citizens, in line with our mandate to safeguard and grow the national wealth of the Kingdom," he said.

The transaction is subject to Indian regulatory and other customary approvals.

Morgan Stanley acted as financial advisor to Reliance Industries and AZB & Partners and Davis Polk & Wardwell acted as legal counsels.

Prior to this deal, Reliance had sold 22.38 per cent of Jio Platforms to investors including Facebook Inc, securing Rs 104,326.95 crore in eight weeks.

Facebook kicked off the party, investing Rs 43,573.62 crore for a 9.99 per cent stake on April 22. This was closely followed by a further Rs 60,753.33 crore in investment.

Silver Lake - the world's largest tech investor - bought a 1.15 per cent stake in Jio Platforms for Rs 5,665.75 crore on May 4. It invested another Rs 4,546.80 crore for additional 0.93 per cent stake on June 5, taking its total holding to 2.08 per cent
Private equity KKR and Vista Equity Partners have taken 2.32 per cent stake each for Rs 11,367 crore apiece. KKR invested in Jio Platforms on May 22 while Vista invested on May 8.

Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund Mubadala Investment Co picked up 1.85 per cent in Jio Platforms for Rs 9,093.60 crore on June 5. Abu Dhabi Investment Authority on June 7 invested Rs 5,683.50 crore for a 1.16 per cent stake in Jio Platforms.

On May 17, global equity firm General Atlantic picked up 1.34 per cent stake in Jio Platforms for Rs 6,598.38 crore.

Global investment firm TPG on June 13 picked up 0.93 per cent for Rs 4,546.80 crore while L Catterton bought 0.39 per cent for Rs 1,894.50 crore.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

Aboard Air Force One, Jan 6: US President Donald Trump threatened sanctions against Baghdad on Sunday after Iraq's parliament called on US troops to leave the country, and the president said if troops did leave, Baghdad would have to pay Washington for the cost of the air base there.

"We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that's there. It cost billions of dollars to build, long before my time. We're not leaving unless they pay us back for it," Trump told reporters on Air Force One.

Trump said that if Iraq asked US forces to leave and it was not done on a friendly basis, "we will charge them sanctions like they've never seen before ever. It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame."