Rotomac Kothari owes various banks Rs 3,695-cr: CBI files FIR

Kochi, May 28: In these pandemic times, when the businesses are gravely affected and the MSMEs are particularly feeling the heat, a Kerala institute has come up with an initiative to help the distressed industry. The Institute of Small Enterprises and Development (ISED) has come out with a unique platform -- 'business clinic' for extending advisory services to the COVID-19 affected MSMEs in the state.

The Kochi based ISED's multi-disciplinary team of experts will offer free guidance to entrepreneurs to make a self-evaluation for improving their performance.

It will serve the interests of the MSMEs, entrepreneurial aspirants, such as the returning migrants, start-ups, educated unemployed, and women entrepreneurs.

ISED director, PM Mathew said COVID-19 pandemic has shattered the budgets and operations of most SMEs, globally, as also in India.

"Post-lockdown, the operational problems are likely to get aggravated. Beyond the broad macro level projections and debates, it is now time to act at the grassroots level. Many entrepreneurs need appropriate clinical assessment, and moral and psychological support, said Mathew.

According to the work force participation data at the national level, Kerala is ranked 31 in terms of the number of self employed, and placed in second rank in relation to the size of casual labour.

The Kerala Enterprise Development Report, brought out by the ISED states while the number of the unregistered enterprises is sizeable, constituting 76.85 % of the total, the respective share of registered MSMEs is only 9.53 %.

The constraints to these enterprises today are, poor sales, large inventory, delayed payments, damage of stock, wage bill arrears, unreliable labour supplies, fund diversion due to exigencies, GST related problems, and NPA/poor credit score.

"For all businesses, unlike in a sporadic recession in the economy, the danger today is circular and cumulative. Both from the demand side, and the supply angle, there is a serious contraction of business activities, which essentially means a glut in the cash flow. Corporate businesses, obviously, will come out of the mess due to their relative advantages of high reserve funds, liberal credit offerings, and easier access to alternative sources of finance," said Mathew.

New Delhi, Feb 5: Delhi High Court on Wednesday stated that that death warrant of all convicts in the Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case should be executed together.

The Delhi prison rules do not state whether when the mercy petition of one convict is pending, the execution of the other convicts can take place and from the trial court to Supreme Court all convicts have been held by a common order and a common judgment, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed while passing the order.

High Court dismissed the Central government and Tihar Jail authorities plea challenging the Patiala House court's order, which stayed the execution of the four convicts in the case. It also observed that the convicts indulged in a heinous offence of a bone-chilling rape and murder of a girl and that criminal appeals by all convicts were dismissed by the courts.

Moreover, the court observed that the review petitions were filed after long wait and convicts are taking shelter of Article 21 which is available to them till their last breath.

A single-judge bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait had on Sunday kept the order reserved in the matter after special hearing of two days.

Earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Centre, alleged that the convicts were deliberately delaying the execution, adding that any delay in death sentence will have a dehumanising effect on the convicts.

A Delhi court last week stayed till further orders the execution of the four convicts -- Akshay Thakur, Mukesh Singh, Pawan Gupta, and Vinay Sharma -- which was earlier scheduled to take place on February 1.

The case pertains to the gang-rape and brutal murder of a 23-year-old paramedical student in a moving bus on the night of December 16, 2012, by six people, including a juvenile, in Delhi. The woman had died at a Singapore hospital a few days later.

One of the five adults accused, Ram Singh, had allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar Jail during the trial of the case.

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.