Pages

Saturday, May 29, 2021

The Jewish history of Israel is over 3,000 years old. That's why it's complicated By David Wolpe, New York TimesLast Updated: May 29, 2021, 05:57 PM IST

 

Synopsis

Over the past month of crisis, turmoil, protest and death we have been inevitably captured by the situation of the present. But part of the intractability of the conflict in the Middle East is that the Jewish relationship to Israel did not begin in 1948. Our history here, of both pain and holiness, stretches back dozens of generations.

FROM THE TORAH, THROUGH THE EXILE, JEWS HAVE ALWAYS LOOKED TO JERUSALEM.

My first visit to Israel was when I was 12 years old. The group was led by my father, a rabbi from Philadelphia. We had been invited to participate in an archaeological dig near the city of Beit Shean, in the country’s north, near the Jordan River Valley. Soon after we arrived, one of my friends happened upon a pottery shard, really an ostracon, a fragment with writing on it. The archaeologist on site said something to him in Hebrew. My father translated: “He said you are the first person to hold that in over 2,000 years.”

Such shocks of antiquity are not rare in Israel. In 1880, archaeologists discovered a Hebrew text carved in stone in a tunnel under Jerusalem. It recounted how workers had chiseled from opposite ends of the ancient city; as they grew closer the sounds of stone cutting grew louder until they met in the middle. The tunnel is believed to be dated from the time of Hezekiah, a king who reigned 715-687 B.C., almost 3,000 years ago and 100 years before the Temple was razed, and Jews were sent into the Babylonian exile. Hezekiah ordered the tunnel’s construction to bring water from outside the city walls into the city. Jerusalem may be a city of sanctity and reverence, but its citizens needed water as much as they did God.

That intersection of the holy and mundane remains. Over the past month of crisis, turmoil, protest and death we have been inevitably captured by the situation of the present. But part of the intractability of the conflict in the Middle East is that the Jewish relationship to Israel did not begin in 1948. Our history here, of both pain and holiness, stretches back dozens of generations.

Our ancient historical markers, scattered throughout this land, are the tactile expression of Jewish memory, and an ancient spiritual yearning. For thousands of years, Jews in the Diaspora would leave a corner of their homes unpainted, to remind themselves that they were not home. They prayed in the direction of Jerusalem. They knew the geography of a land they would never see, often far better than the country in which they lived. They recited prayers for weather — in services during the winter we yearn for rain or dew — not to help the harvests outside Vilnius or Paris or Fez, but for those in Israel, since we expected at any moment to return.

The Bible depicts an ideal land, one flowing with milk and honey. Yet Israel has always been one thing in dreams and another in the tumult of everyday life. When the five books of the Torah end, the Israelites are still in the wilderness and Moses, our leader out of Egypt, has been denied the promised land. The message is manifest: The  perfect place does not yet exist, and you must enter a messy and contested land armed with the vision God has given you. Jews conclude the Passover Seder with “next year in Jerusalem.” Yet if one has the Seder in Jerusalem, the conclusion is not “next year here.” Rather, it is “next year in a rebuilt Jerusalem” — a city that reflects the ideals and aspirations of sages and prophets, one marked with piety and plenty.

For many Jews, that vision is as relevant today as it was in ancient Israel. That means the past, present and future of the land is not just an argument about settlements or structures alone, but an ideal of a place of safety, a heavenly city on earth one that we continue to strive and pray for, especially after the violence of these last few weeks.

Though we famously admonish ourselves to ever remember Jerusalem in Psalm 137 — the sacred city of stone and tears is not the sole focus of Jewish yearning. Israel is haunted by historical memories. In the northern town of Tsfat, a pilgrim can wander among the graves of the Jewish mystics who re-established a community in that mountain town after the expulsion from Spain in 1492: Isaac Luria who taught that God’s self-contraction made way for the world; Joseph Caro, author of the Shulchan Aruch, the authoritative code of Jewish law, who believed an angel dictated visions to him in the evening. They were joined there by Greek born Solomon Alkabetz, who wrote the poem, L’cha Dodi (Come to me, Beloved), a lyrical love song to the Sabbath that is sung in synagogues all over the world each Friday night.

Despite the deep meditations on evil and afterlife in Jewish tradition, the concept of hell is not as developed in Judaism as in other traditions. However, there is a popular name for it: Gehenna. It derives from a place where children in antiquity were said to have been sacrificed to the pagan god Moloch.
In 1979, archaeologists began excavating in the area that is believed to be ancient Gehenna. Not far from the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem, they found what is considered to be one of the oldest bits of scripture that exists in the world, more than 400 years older than the Dead Sea scrolls. It dates from the time just before the destruction of the first Temple, the Temple of Solomon, in 586 B.C. The scorched ground yielded two rolled up silver amulets that are on display to this day in the Israel Museum. When painstakingly unfurled, the text was almost verbatim to the Bible verses:

“May God bless you and keep you.

May God’s face shine upon you and be gracious to you.

May God turn His face toward you and give you peace.” (Num 6:24-26)”

This is the priestly blessing, one parents recite for their children each Friday night, a fervent prayer for the future. In other words, the oldest bit of scripture that exists in the world is a blessing of peace that was snatched from hell. In that beleaguered and beautiful land, the prayer endures.

Friday, May 28, 2021

Here is why you should not share COVID-19 vaccine certificate on social media The government has issued an advisory against posting vaccination certificates online. MONEYCONTROL NEWS MAY 28, 2021 / 09:16 AM IST

 

The government has issued an advisory against posting vaccination certificates online.

The government has advised against posting the coronavirus vaccination certificate on social media as it carries important personal information that can be misused.

The certificate carries the name, age, gender as well as vaccination details—the name of vaccine name, dates of first and well as the second dose.

"Beware of sharing #vaccination certificate on social media," the government said. "COVID-19 vaccination certificate contains your name and other personal details. Avoid sharing your vaccination certificate on social media platforms as it may be misused cyber fraudsters to defraud you," the post read.

The ministry of home affairs posted the warning on its cyber-safety and cybersecurity awareness Twitter handle Cyber Dost. COVID-19 vaccination certificate can be downloaded both from CoWIN portal as well as from the Aarogya Setu app.

Scientists, doctors and even politicians have been encouraging people to get the COVID-19 jab. On May 1, the government opened vaccination for all above 18 years of age in the third phase of the nationwide vaccination drive, though a shortage has forced several states to put off vaccination for 18-45 age group.

Vaccination status can now be accessed from the Aarogya Setu app as well. A blue tick appears against the names of people once they take the first dose. After both doses, two blue ticks will be displayed. "Now your Vaccination Status can be updated on Aarogya Setu. Get yourself vaccinated - Get the Double Blue Ticks and Get the Blue Shield," Aarogya Setu tweeted.

The vaccination certificate is expected to gain more importance in the coming days as several countries are working on systems that will require travel to provide proof of being vaccinated.

India has no such requirement for domestic or international travel but public health experts believe vaccination certificates can boost tourism not only in India but across the world.

India has cleared three vaccines—Covishield, developed by the Serum Institute of India for Oxford-AstraZaneca, Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin and Russia's Sputnik V—for emergency use.


Wednesday, May 26, 2021

Truths About Life That Little Children Have Learned:

 


 1. No matter how hard you try, you can't baptize cats.

 2. When your Mom is mad at your Dad, don't let her brush your hair.

 3. If your sister hits you, don't hit her back. They always catch the second person.

 4. Never ask your 3-year old brother to hold a tomato.

 5. You can't trust dogs to watch your food.

 6. Don't sneeze when someone is cutting your hair.

 7. Never hold a Dust-Buster and a cat at the same time.

 8. You can't hide a piece of broccoli in a glass of milk.

 9. Don't wear polka-dot underwear under white shorts.

10. The best place to be when you're sad is Grandpa's lap. Thanks

Prince William and Kate Make Chapatis, Guided By Sikh Women's Group | Sc...

This is called a super case of Desi Hindi proverb but sorry to quote here but relevant against Thieves of bank money (JAB GAAND LAGI PHATNE TOU KHAIRAT LAGI BATNE meaning that When it comes to bursting of asshole then only you start distributing sweets)) News is :-More promoters move to make aggressive bids to regain control of their bankrupt companies From the IDBI-Sivasankaran deal to Kapil Wadhawan’s offer for DHFL and Manoj Gaur settlement plan for Jaypee Group, old promoters are offering lenders payment propositions to take back control of their companies. What does this mean for the banking industry? DINESH UNNIKRISHNAN MAY 26, 2021 / 07:43 PM IST moneycontrolnews

 

According to the Section 29A of IBC, an insolvent, a wilful defaulter or a person who was a promoter or was in the management of the corporate debtor, among other conditions, would not be allowed to bid for the insolvent company concerned.

A change of heart, a change of plans or simply working the loopholes?

In recent weeks, there have been at least three back-to-back cases where promoters have made hurried bids to regain control of their companies from ongoing bankruptcy proceedings.

These are IDBI-C Sivasankaran’s one-time settlement (OTS) plan, Kapil Wadhawan’s proposal for Dewan Housing Finance Ltd (DHFL) and Manoj Gaur’s settlement offer for debt-ridden Jaypee Group.

Except in the case of Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd (SIHL) owned by Sivasankaran, the bidding process is at various stages in the other two cases.

While Chennai-based industrialist, C Sivasankaran, made a one-time settlement offer to lenders for SIHL after the firm failed to receive any successful bids in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kapil Wadhawan made a bid for DHFL even after lenders had approved a successful resolution effort from Piramal group.

Similarly, Gaur’s offer has come at a time when the government’s construction arm, NBCC, and Mumbai-based Suraksha Group have submitted applications for the firm and voting is due.

Are banks right in considering these offers? Industry experts are divided on the issue.

Let's take the case of DHFL. The committee of creditors (CoC) last week asked the lenders to consider Kapil Wadhawan’s settlement offer within ten days.

But, the DHFL-administrator, the Piramal group (winning bidder) and the lenders appealed against the NCLT decision earlier this week at the appellate tribunal, which stayed the order of the quasi-judicial body.

Wadhawan owes Rs 91,000 crore to creditors and offered to settle the deal over the next seven to eight years, which the lenders are not keen to consider.

On January 15, creditors to the DHFL voted in favour of Piramal as the winning bidder. Piramal got 94 percent votes. A resolution plan needs a minimum of 66 percent votes to be passed by lenders, who can vote a preference for more than one bidder.

 NCLT order 

At least two experts said NCLT was wrong in directing lenders to consider Wadhawan’s offer.

“In the case of Wadhawan, it is established beyond doubt that they have siphoned off money. I was very surprised when NCLT asked lenders to consider his offer,” says J N Gupta, former executive director at Sebi.

“In the event of a genuine business failure, lenders should give the promoter a chance to settle the dues but if there is a fraud, there is no question of any such settlement,” he adds.

Wadhawan is an accused and is currently being investigated in the Yes Bank-DHFL loan bribery case.

Naresh Malhotra, former SBI executive and senior banking consultant, concurs. He believes NCLT was wrong in allowing Wadhawan’s offer.

“There is nothing concrete in Wadhawan’s offer; the same as in Vijay Mallya’s case with respect to the source of funds and timeframe of payment. My feeling is NCLT is wrong in allowing Wadhawan to go for OTS,” he says.

Vijay Mallya, former Kingfisher chief, defaulted over Rs 9,000 crore to banks and moved to the UK in March 2016.

Since then, the flamboyant liquor tycoon has tweeted about his willingness to settle dues with the banks, but the lenders have not taken these offers seriously, saying there is no clarity on the businessman's payment plan.

In the case of SIHL, in April this year, promoter Sivasankaran managed to convince most of the lenders to pull the company out of the corporate insolvency resolution process and go in for a OTS of Rs 500 crore.

In effect, banks sacrificed 90 percent of their outstanding loans—about Rs 4,500 crore—to SIHCL.

“There was no option left for bankers but to accept the offer,” said a senior official with a Mumbai-based PSU  (public sector undertaking) bank, who was involved in the deal.

He adds: “There were no interests for this company, there were no successful bids. If banks take it to liquidation, they won’t get anything at all.”

Under Section 12 A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), if majority lenders agree, banks can withdraw the bankruptcy application. The process requires 90 percent of the voting share of lenders.

Diluting Section 29 A?

While promoters offering settlement deals for IBC companies minus a successful applicant, may make commercial sense to banks, some experts believe that this could violate the true spirit of Section 29 A of the IBC Act.

According to the Section 29A of IBC, an insolvent, a wilful defaulter or a person who was a promoter or was in the management of the corporate debtor, among other conditions, would not be allowed to bid for the insolvent company concerned.

A recent Supreme Court judgement also made it clear that promoters cannot even participate in the liquidation of a company under IBC.

In March this year, while barring the promoters of Gujarat NRE Coke from proposing a revival plan in the event of liquidation under IBC, the apex court said defaulting promoters, barred from a resolution plan under section 29A of the IBC, cannot use the scheme of arrangement and compromise to gain control of a company while it’s in liquidation. “The stages of submitting a resolution plan, selling assets of a company in liquidation and selling the company as a going concern during liquidation, all indicate that the promoter or those in the management of the company must not be allowed a back-door entry in the company,” the SC judgment by a Bench comprising Justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and MR Shah, said.

Says Prem Rajani, Managing Partner of Rajani Associates: “This is a significant digression or dilution from the principles of IBC, the judicial pronouncements and amendments in the last four years, although this may make commercial sense to banks.”

Such deals could be unfair towards shareholders as well, points out Sidhharth Purohit, analyst at SMC Global securities in Mumbai.

“If there are good bidders, what is the point of getting back to the old promoters, which will lead to further litigation,” he queries.

According to Purohit, “This will only delay the resolution further as other bidders too will challenge the decision in courts.”

However, banks need to ensure that no promoters, who are unfit to bid for their own companies, can participate in such deals, he said.

“In many cases, where resolution applicants are not coming forward, banks can use 12 A to withdraw the IBC case and try for a settlement,” the banker said.

Another senior banker, who declined to be named, points out that lenders always look to get maximum returns from the cases and considering that, an OTS may not be a bad idea.


SUZUKI NAMES AND THEIR MEANINGS :-Source:-Gilmour motors

 

Suzuki

Suzuki literally means "bell tree" in Japanese

Suzu - "bell"

Ki - "tree"

A common Japanese surname and business name

      freeimages.com/eurokfreeimages.com/claudiameyer

 

 

 

 

Kizashi

 

Kizashi is a Japanese word meaning “a sign of great things to come”


Pronounced “Kee-Zah-Shee"

Celerio

"Celestial River"

"Celer-" is also a latin root word meaning "swift" "fast" "speedy" or "quick" giving us "accelerate" in English

freeimages.com/stosicmarko

Swift

Adjective: Moving or capable of moving with great speed, fast
Noun: The swift is also a medium-sized bird, an excellent flier that can sleep on the wing

http://www.rspb.org.uk/discoverandenjoynature/discoverandlearn/birdguide/name/s/swift/

Alto

"High" from the Latin "altus"

In music, "alto" refers to a musical range lower than a soprano and higher than a tenor

freeimages.com/alexanderwaalnoefer

Jimny

Similar to "Jiminy", an expression of surprise, eg "by Jiminy, she was right!" (of course!)

Grand Vitara

"Awesome way of life" - well that's what we reckon anyway! smiley

Grand - “Great"
Vitara - "way of life”

Baleno

Italian for "flash" or "lightning"

Ignis

Latin for "fire"

  

 

J

Buddham Saranam Gacchami Mantra, Meaning and Benefits :-Meditative mind

 Three Jewels of Buddhism are the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha and by reaching or by surrendering oneself to these three heals one from all sufferings and that journey starts with taking refuge in Buddha Dhamma Sangha.

Buddham saranam gacchami
I go to the Buddha for refuge.

Dhammam saranam gacchami
I go to the Dhamma for refuge

Sangham saranam gacchami
I go to the Sangha for refuge.

Meaning of Mantra

These words are not just for uttering, but for investigating, to go deep into their meaning. To meditate upon. Buddha means the one who takes us from Darkness to Light, towards wisdom. Towards higher consciousness towards mindfuless.  Dhamma is ‘Here – and – Now’, It is not taking refuge into some intellectual writings or anything but something we can access here and now. Sangha Means community, community where people support, help each other in the meditation practice. It is very important to have a community, so that when you are feeling down, when you are not feeling your 100%, or when you are stuck somewhere, the Community is there to Help you, to pull you up.

To know that there is some bigger, higher force or energy that is in play, and we all have access to that energy. And how can we access that force that energy? By surrendering, by taking refuge into that higher self, by becoming one with that, by becoming part of that force, that energy. Three Jewels of Buddhism are the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha and by reaching or by surrendering oneself to these three heals one from all sufferings and that journey starts with taking refuge in Buddha Dhamma Sangha.  This Mantra  is also called three gem of Buddhism.

Benefits of Chanting Mantra

  1. Awakening the mind
  2. Freedom from Suffering
  3. Direct Connection with divine forces
  4. Remains in the present
  5. Helps to surrender before God and go to the higher self
  6. This mantra helps in meditation practice



Happy Buddha Purnima 2021

 





Buddham Sharanam Gachchami New By Hariharan I The Three Jewels Of Buddhism

Tuesday, May 25, 2021

THE GREAT TATA

 


EYE OPENER ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN SEP 2019 (THE CARAVAN) PUT HERE AS EYE OPENER FOR INDIAN PUBLIC

 Indiabulls and corporate groups like Reliance, DLF collaborated to turn hundreds of crores of public money into private wealth: PIL in Delhi HC

06 September 2019
Sameer Gehlaut, the founder and chairman of the Indiabulls group, at his office in Mumbai. A PIL filed today in the Delhi high court has accused Indiabulls of financial irregularities running into thousands of crores, including public money. 
UMESH GOSWAMY/THE INDIA TODAY GROUP/GETTY IMAGES UMESH

Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, the flagship company of the Indiabulls group, collaborated with large conglomerates including the Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group and the DLF Group to divvy up vast amounts of public money by rerouting it through shell companies, according to a public-interest litigation submitted today in the Delhi high court. The PIL stated that IBHFL borrowed large sums from various private and public banks, and used a complex maze of shell companies to extend loans to the tune of thousands of crores to firms owned by these large business groups. In turn, the petition said, the groups invested money in entities owned by the promoters of Indiabulls, including its founder and chairman, Sameer Gehlaut. “The intent of all these methods is to create private wealth out of public money,” the PIL noted. It termed these transactions “round tripping” and a “scam” of those carried out by the ICICI Bank and Dewan Housing Finance, in which a “huge amount of public money involving lakhs of crores is being looted.” The PIL stated: “The clout of the promoters of these companies is such that the regulators have closed their eyes to these frauds happening right under their noses.”

The companies named in the PIL include Anil Ambani’s Reliance ADAG; the DLF Group, promoted by Kushalpal Singh; the Americorp Group, promoted by Harish Fabiani, a Spain-based non-resident Indian; the Vatika Group and the Chordia Group, both real-estate companies. According to the petition, IBHFL loaned close to Rs 9,248 crore to these five companies. It stated that Reliance ADAG received Rs 1,580 crore in loans and invested Rs 570 crore back in Indiabulls, while DLF received Rs 1,705.54 crore as loans and invested at least Rs 66 crore in a company owned by Gehlaut. IBHFL lent a whopping Rs 4,601.01 crore to 51 companies of the Vatika Group, owned by Gautam Bhalla, the petition said. It further stated that many Indiabulls shell companies have been indulging in various other malpractices, involving several thousand crores of rupees.

The PIL was filed by the Citizen Whistle Blowers Forum, a civil-society group that aims to provide a platform to whistleblowers and to litigate on their behalf. The “round tripping” of funds by IBHFL and its promoters is in violation of statutes relating to income-tax evasion, Reserve Bank of India regulations and the rules of the Securities and Exchange Board of India and National Housing Bank, the petition stated. It demanded a special investigation team look into Indiabulls’ finances and the “illegalities, violations and siphoning” committed by the IBHFL’s promoters.

IBHFL is the second-largest home-finance company in India, with 220 branches in 110 cities and towns. According to the PIL, it contributes roughly eighty percent of the group’s turnover. The PIL described IBHFL’s financial status based on documents in the public domain: in the financial year 2017–18, IBHFL disbursed loans worth Rs 1,22,578 crore, a growth of 34.3 percent from the previous year. Its revenue grew by 25.1 percent from the previous year, to Rs 14,640 crore, while its profit after tax was Rs 3,847 crore. However, the PIL noted, the company’s outstanding debt was Rs 96,204.58 crore. As of March 2019, its liabilities stood at Rs 1,13,463.50 crore—about thirteen crores higher than the previous year. Its net worth is Rs 17,258.92 crore. The PIL emphasised that IBHFL had borrowed from a number of public-sector undertakings. This means that “public money is at stake, along with the money invested in IBHFL by its shareholders and investors,” the PIL said.

CURRENT ISSUE
MAY 2021

The petition presented an analysis of the loans IBHFL extended to five companies—although more exist—and the shell companies through which these transactions were carried out. It noted that many of the companies that IBHFL loaned money to have “a small-paid up capital”—the amount that a company receives from its shareholders by selling shares on the primary market—“do not have any fixed assets and are not even engaged in any business activities.” Several companies had a paid-up capital of a few lakhs, but had received loans worth tens of crores. The directors and the office addresses of many of these companies are also common, the petition noted. A majority of these borrower companies have also failed to file charges with the ministry of corporate affairs, the petition said. (A charge is a type of security created on some property of the company to secure a loan and every company has to register the charges created by it on its assets with the registrar of companies.) The petition noted that hundreds of companies are registered at the same address as that of Indiabulls, “thereby showing a staggering number of dummy companies having been created by Indiabulls.”

The petition noted that five Reliance ADAG companies received loans worth Rs 1,580 crore from IBHFL: Reliance Inceptum received a loan of Rs 106 crore; Reliance Big Entertainment received Rs 210 crore, Reliance Communications Enterprises received Rs 200 crore; Reliance Interactive Advisers received Rs 908 crore; and Zapak Digital Entertainment received Rs 156 crore. The former four are all registered to the same address, in Santacruz, Mumbai. The petition also stated that Reliance ADAG companies invested Rs 570 crore back into nine companies owned or promoted directly by Gehlaut, or through group subsidiaries. It noted that the money was invested using a financial instrument called optionally convertible debentures, at a nominal interest rate of 0.01 percent. These debentures are debt instruments where the lender has the option of converting the loan amount to equity.

According to the PIL, Reliance Capital, under Reliance ADAG, invested money in six subsidiaries of Indiabulls: Iphito Properties received Rs 10 crore in loans; Iphito Real Estate received Rs 20 crore; Myrina Real Estate received Rs 10 crore; Myrina Builders received Rs 10 crore; Orthia Real Estate received Rs 35 crore; and EMU Constructions received Rs 50 crore. Further, Reliance Corporate Advisory, also under Reliance ADAG, lent to three subsidiaries of Indiabulls, the petition said: Galax Minerals received Rs 50 crore; Meru Minerals received Rs 185 crore; and Paidia Conconnection received Rs 200 crore. The petition noted that Galax Minerals is owned wholly by Sameer Gehlaut, and that its balance sheets do not show the security necessary for securing such a loan.

Galax received Rs. 726.50 crore in all, the petition said—Rs 50 crore from Reliance Corporate Advisory; Rs 589 crore from Myrina Real Estate and Rs 87.50 crore from Iphito Real Estate. The loan from Reliance Corporate Advisory is in the form of debentures carrying 0.01 percent interest per annum, the petition said. “However, Galax Minerals’ books of accounts show there are no current assets or insignificant current assets available except for investment which is not charged. Thus, the security is an eye wash leading one to conclude that the transaction is round tripping.

According to the petition, IBHFL loaned more than Rs 1,705.54 crore to 48 companies of the DLF Group. It noted that many of these firms have “negative worth” and all are “pass-through companies which have been used to garner huge sums of loans and use them for purposes other than intended ones.” For instance, the petition said, “Despite a negative worth, IBHFL gave the company a loan of Rs. 173.40 crore to Atherol Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd, subsidiary of Felicite Builder & Constructions … The loan money was used to buy land and give loans to group companies.” It added that EMU Realcon, another company owned by Gehlaut, received an infusion of Rs 66 crore from three companies under the DLF group as “preference shares”—where the holder is entitled to a fixed payout and where the holder’s payment takes priority over ordinary shareholders.

The petition said that IBHFL lent Rs 4,601.01 crore to 51 companies of the Vatika Group, owned by Gautam Bhalla. Forty of these companies are registered to the same address, it stated, while many have a paid-up capital of only Rs 1 lakh. These companies were given loans ranging from Rs 16 crore in the case of Garin Developers to Rs 184.50 crore in the case of Timor Developers. “Most shocking is the case of Shivsagar Builders,” the petition noted. “Though the company has a paid-up capital of Rs. 25 lakh only, IBHFL found it worthy of granting a loan of Rs. 1575 crore.” It is clear that IBHFL “did not do any due diligence and went about giving huge loans for reasons known only to the promoters,” the petition said.

Harish Fabiani, a non-resident Indian based in Madrid, is the promoter of the Americorp Group, four of whose subsidiaries received loans worth Rs 151.9 crore from IBHFL. According to the petition, the money was ploughed back into Indiabulls Group companies through equity investment, which the petition calls a case of “round-tripping.” Two Americorp subsidiaries—Jasol Investment & Trading Company and Joindre Finance—invested Rs 254.87 crore in five Indiabulls subsidiaries. Indiabulls Ventures received Rs 39.58 crore; Indiabulls Housing Finance received Rs 22.88 crore; Myrina Builders recieved Rs 31 crore; Iphito Real Estate received Rs 44 crore; and Indiabulls Real Estate received Rs 117.41 crore.

Three subsidiaries of the Chordia Group, which operates in real estate, received Rs 1,209 crore from IBHFL. “This loan was squared up through money diverted from Mahalunge Land Developers (group Company of Chordia) from the amount borrowed from IBHFL,” the petition notes. “In addition Rs. 50 crores was paid as professional fee to Indiabulls Real Estate Limited.”

In all, these five corporate groups received loans worth Rs 9,248 crore. “In other words, borrowing companies bestow huge benefits to the key shareholders and Chairman of IBHFL for the favour they get in the form of loans from IBHFL,” the petition said.

In April 2016, Gehlaut’s name appeared in the Panama Papers, a leaked database of the documents of the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca that includes attorney-client information of millions of offshore entities. “Sameer Gehlaut had bought three top London properties through a web of intermediary companies all leading to SG Family Trust owned by the parents of Divya Gehlaut, wife of Sameer Gehlaut,” the petition noted, citing an Indian Express report.

The petition detailed some other malpractices by Gehlaut-promoted companies. One of the main irregularities it cited was the issuance of compulsory convertible debentures, or CCDs—debt instruments that should be compulsorily convertible to equity. However, these had been left optional and have been used to “route public money into private equity,” the petition said. It named 18 companies promoted by Indiabulls or Gehlaut, including EMU Realcon and Galax Minerals, as well as Myrina Real Estate and Myrina Builders.

The petition noted that EMU Realcon, which is owned by Sameer Gehlaut and received Rs 66 crore from three DLF companies, made investments using CCDs at almost a nil rate of interest. “The terms of using this vehicle is contrary to and in violation of standard practices. Although these debentures are compulsory in principle, the holder of these CCDs has the liberty to exercise the option of redeeming them. The money is being moved from one company to another without any encumbrances, such as payment of interest and taxes chargeable thereupon,” the petition said.

According to the petition, the financial practices of IBHFL and its promoters are fraudulent, and violated various sections of the Companies Act of 2013, Sections 403, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code—misappropriation of property, breach of trust and cheating, respectively—as well as various guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and National Housing Bank, the regulatory authority that oversees housing-finance institutions. It named the NHB as a respondent, alongside other regulatory bodies such as the Serious Fraud Investigation Office and the Security and Exchanges Board of India, as well as the ministry of corporate affairs. The petition condemned these institutions for “complete inaction” against IBHFL, and demanded an immediate order for a thorough investigation.

“The instant scam follows close to the heels of scams such as those perpetrated by ICICI Bank, IL&FS and Dewan Housing Finance Limited,” the petition said. “It illustrates how promoters and persons in charge of large NBFCs”—non-banking finance corporations—have looted public monies invested in them and diverted them to their own companies using shell companies.” Any inaction, the petition stated, could “result in jeopardizing and undermining of public interest, rule of the law and the regulatory structure besides probable loss to the public exchequer.”

Update: After this article was published, a representative from the Vatika Group sent The Caravan a press statement from the group’s managing director, Gautam Bhalla. He wrote: “Vatika Limited and our group companies do not have any association with any company associated with Mr. Sameer Gehlaut. Further, Vatika Limited and any of the group companies have not made any investment in any of the companies associated with Mr.Gehlaut.”

TUSHAR DHARA is a reporting fellow with The Caravan. He has previously worked with Bloomberg News, Indian Express and Firstpost and as a mazdoor with the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan in Rajasthan.


USED HERE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY