No LTA for employee using car or taxi, say central govt
PRESS TRUST OF INDIA New Delhi, 2 November
The government will not sanction any Leave Travel Allowance (LTA) for an employee who uses personal car or taxi as mode of transport.
However, the rule shall not be applicable to employees with a handicap or disability of self or dependent family member.
According to a government notification, the employees can avail the LTA only if they travel by Indian Railways or Air India and state transport corporation buses.
The order issued by Department of Personnel said the LTA facility would be admissible only in respect of journeys made in vehicles “operated by the government or any corporation in the public sector run by the Central government, state government or a local body”.
However, the government has relaxed the order for the physically handicap or disability of self or dependent family members who are unable to travel by authorised modes of transport and are compelled to undertake the journey by own car or private taxis.
Such employees will have to take a medical certificate from the competent authority, besides give an undertaking that the journey in authorised mode is not feasible and the same can be only covered in own car or taxi.
Besides, such claim should not be more than the journey performed by the entitled class by rail or air.
According to a government notification, the employees can avail the LTA only if they travel by Indian Railways or Air India or state transport corporation buses
Sunday, November 8, 2009
shareholder democracy
The press conference given by Ministry officials during ICSI national convention held at hyderabad
Ms Renuka Kumar, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs; flanked by Mr N. K. Jain (left), Secretary and CEO of Institute of Company Secretaries of India; and Mr Datla Hanumantha Raju, ICSI President, at the 37th National Convention of the Institute, in Hyderabad on Saturday. — Source The Business Line
Our Bureau
Hyderabad, Nov. 7 Thanks to the Companies Law Bill 2009, the expression ‘shareholders’ democracy’ is gaining in popularity. The Government argues that shareholders should have a say in deciding the managerial remuneration. But what does shareholders democracy actually mean?
This question led to an interesting discussion at the 37th convention of Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) here on Saturday, with a senior member questioning the very idea of shareholder democracy. If the norm of ‘one share-one vote’ comes into the picture, the promoters and friends with maximum number of shares would win the vote.
The new Bill, which is likely to come up in the Budget session in 2010, proposes no cap on the remuneration of CEOs, letting the shareholders decide the issue.Defining the term
Participating in an animated discussion after Ms Renuka Kumar, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, made her remarks on various issues in the Bill, Mr J. Krishna Murthy, a senior ICSI member, wondered what defined a person as a shareholder.
Stating that promoters as investors held sway, he said when a promoter puts up his hand (in the annual general meetings) the resolution is passed and when he puts it down, the resolution gets turned down.Modifying rights
The best way to change this could be curtailing or modifying the voting rights. “But it is a right pertaining to property protected by the Constitution,” he said.
Another member suggested that as interested parties, the promoting executives should opt out of the meeting when the remuneration issue comes up for discussion.
Ms Renuka Kumar said it would be long before shareholder democracy takes root in the country. The provision for class action suits, giving the shareholders the right to decide the remunerations, broadening the scope of disclosure norms — would certainly help grow the idea of fledgling shareholder democracy, she said.
On the remuneration issue, she regretted that directors sought a three-fold increase in salaries when their companies were in the red.
Another member suggested that there should be guidelines for appointing directors. “They interview and appoint the best people for important positions. But unfortunately, there are no qualifications laid down for themselves,” he said.
Another ICSI member, however, protested at the views that showed the promoters in poor light. “They are the investors in the company. It is shareholders that don’t have a permanent stake in the company. They can sell their shares tomorrow and walk off. But promoters will not. Don’t consider them crooks,” she pointed out
Ms Renuka Kumar, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs; flanked by Mr N. K. Jain (left), Secretary and CEO of Institute of Company Secretaries of India; and Mr Datla Hanumantha Raju, ICSI President, at the 37th National Convention of the Institute, in Hyderabad on Saturday. — Source The Business Line
Our Bureau
Hyderabad, Nov. 7 Thanks to the Companies Law Bill 2009, the expression ‘shareholders’ democracy’ is gaining in popularity. The Government argues that shareholders should have a say in deciding the managerial remuneration. But what does shareholders democracy actually mean?
This question led to an interesting discussion at the 37th convention of Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) here on Saturday, with a senior member questioning the very idea of shareholder democracy. If the norm of ‘one share-one vote’ comes into the picture, the promoters and friends with maximum number of shares would win the vote.
The new Bill, which is likely to come up in the Budget session in 2010, proposes no cap on the remuneration of CEOs, letting the shareholders decide the issue.Defining the term
Participating in an animated discussion after Ms Renuka Kumar, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, made her remarks on various issues in the Bill, Mr J. Krishna Murthy, a senior ICSI member, wondered what defined a person as a shareholder.
Stating that promoters as investors held sway, he said when a promoter puts up his hand (in the annual general meetings) the resolution is passed and when he puts it down, the resolution gets turned down.Modifying rights
The best way to change this could be curtailing or modifying the voting rights. “But it is a right pertaining to property protected by the Constitution,” he said.
Another member suggested that as interested parties, the promoting executives should opt out of the meeting when the remuneration issue comes up for discussion.
Ms Renuka Kumar said it would be long before shareholder democracy takes root in the country. The provision for class action suits, giving the shareholders the right to decide the remunerations, broadening the scope of disclosure norms — would certainly help grow the idea of fledgling shareholder democracy, she said.
On the remuneration issue, she regretted that directors sought a three-fold increase in salaries when their companies were in the red.
Another member suggested that there should be guidelines for appointing directors. “They interview and appoint the best people for important positions. But unfortunately, there are no qualifications laid down for themselves,” he said.
Another ICSI member, however, protested at the views that showed the promoters in poor light. “They are the investors in the company. It is shareholders that don’t have a permanent stake in the company. They can sell their shares tomorrow and walk off. But promoters will not. Don’t consider them crooks,” she pointed out
Postal department and consumer forum
The Government departments are insisting to send documents either by registered post or ordinary post. The Income tax department after filing income tax return by electronic filing, we are asked to send the ITR V to Bangalore for generation acknowledgement by ordinary post. While sending the documents if there is any delay by postal department to deliver, we will not get any relief from Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 6 of Indian Post Act, 1898 provides exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage. It is clear that the government shall not incur any liability by reason of loss or delay of or, damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post on the basis of Section 6 of Indian Post Act, 1898.. The sender has to prove that there was fraud or willful act or default by the departmental authorities.
Postmaster Imphal vs Dr.Jamini Devi ( 2000) - National Commission -Consumer Forum.
Brief facts of the case: The complainant sent pockets containing original certificate along with application form with necessary fee by Regd post to National Tutorial Mumbai. The same was not delivered on time. Due to the same, she was not able to appear the examination. The complainant appeal to state commission and after hearing both sides found that there was negligence and deficiency in service and State commission held that the postal authorities were liable.
On appeal to National commission, it was informed that Section 6 of Indian Post Act, 1898 provides exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage. The postal authorities further contended that they are only providing service to the citizen not on commercial basis.The functions of government mainly provide cheap and better communication to those residing in remote villages. Further they contended that Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force.
After hearing the argument both sides, the National Commission has set aside the order of the State Commission and compliant was dismissed.
Section 6 of Indian Post Act, 1898 : - The protection under Section 6 of Indian Post Act, 1898 available only when the loss or damage caused by fraudulently or by his (officer) willful act or default. In the case of Dr.Venkateshwara Rao vs PMG, the application for employment sent through the post office by mistake delivered to sender himself. It was pointed that there was no allegation of fraudulent or willful act of any employee, the exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage will be available under Section 6 of the Act.
Section 6 of The Indian Post Act, 1898 provides exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage.- The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.
Conclusion: The immunity will be available to Postal department on account of liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage only when the cause was not in the nature of fraudulent or willful act / default. The department has to prove the same that the delay was beyond their control and no fraudulent or willful act or default.
Postmaster Imphal vs Dr.Jamini Devi ( 2000) - National Commission -Consumer Forum.
Brief facts of the case: The complainant sent pockets containing original certificate along with application form with necessary fee by Regd post to National Tutorial Mumbai. The same was not delivered on time. Due to the same, she was not able to appear the examination. The complainant appeal to state commission and after hearing both sides found that there was negligence and deficiency in service and State commission held that the postal authorities were liable.
On appeal to National commission, it was informed that Section 6 of Indian Post Act, 1898 provides exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage. The postal authorities further contended that they are only providing service to the citizen not on commercial basis.The functions of government mainly provide cheap and better communication to those residing in remote villages. Further they contended that Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force.
After hearing the argument both sides, the National Commission has set aside the order of the State Commission and compliant was dismissed.
Section 6 of Indian Post Act, 1898 : - The protection under Section 6 of Indian Post Act, 1898 available only when the loss or damage caused by fraudulently or by his (officer) willful act or default. In the case of Dr.Venkateshwara Rao vs PMG, the application for employment sent through the post office by mistake delivered to sender himself. It was pointed that there was no allegation of fraudulent or willful act of any employee, the exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage will be available under Section 6 of the Act.
Section 6 of The Indian Post Act, 1898 provides exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage.- The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.
Conclusion: The immunity will be available to Postal department on account of liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage only when the cause was not in the nature of fraudulent or willful act / default. The department has to prove the same that the delay was beyond their control and no fraudulent or willful act or default.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)