There is hope for the investors of Dreamz, TGS and Gruhakalyan developers from the Government


The Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South has notified few properties which had been bought by the aforesaid groups and might be examining the JDA, MOU and other such contracts entered into by them to initiate appropriate legal action and recover the monies to repay the investors and depositors.

It is a long legal journey as majority of the properties are in different stages of construction and are under serious legal issues, but, nevertheless, the investors, might get back their investment, may be partly, after a long arduous journey.

Let us hope for the best.

FRDI BILL 2017 – A LOOK INTO THE SECURITY OF COMMON MAN`S DEPOSITS!! FRDI contemplating increase in deposit insurance cover from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.3.5 lakhs: Report


FRDI BILL 2017

A LOOK INTO THE SECURITY OF COMMON MAN`S DEPOSITS!!

Though the bill has been sent to the joint parliamentary committee, which is studying the bill and is expected to submit its report in the winter session, some media reports fuelled by social media messages are causing panic among investors and depositors. But rather than clarifying its position on the bill as soon as the first reports were out, the government waited for social media to go absolutely berserk before the Finance Minister came out with a pacifier.

Another fear among the public was that the money deposited or standing in the name of/to the credit of the public in the bank being converted into a fixed deposit or shares of the bank, in case of bailing out the bank. 
The worst part of the fear was that, if the bank goes bust or under loss, the bank can use the deposits of the public for its recovery or survival, and the public felt and thought that all their monies and deposits will be LOST.

Before addressing some of these fears, let us first look at what the existing rules mean for depositors and then deliberate on the changes that are expected if and when FRDI is implemented in its current form.

India has historically been a country where not only bank accounts but even mutual funds are considered safe places to park one’s money. No depositor has ever lost his or her money despite the Deposit Insurance Corporation providing a cover of only Rs 1 lakh for both the principal amount and interest earned. The cover was only Rs 1,500 in 1962, when the corporation was incorporated but was increased to Rs 1 lakh in May 1993.

However, the insurance company did not have much work to do as depositors of banks going under were taken care of by merging the failed banks with bigger banks.

Coming to FRDI, here is what section 52 – the section of the FRDI bill that deals with ‘bail-in’, has to say:

“…the Corporation may, in consultation with the appropriate regulator, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to bail-in a specified service provider to absorb the losses incurred, or reasonably expected to be incurred, by the specified service provider and to provide a measure of capital so as to enable it to carry on business for a reasonable period and maintain market confidence, take an action under this section by a bail-in instrument or a scheme to be made under section 48”.

Section 48 details the method and time of resolution and provides for all possible means to ensuring that the depositor’s money is safe. It calls for transferring the whole or part of the assets and liabilities of a specified service provider or creating a bridge service provider, or merger or amalgamation of the specified service provider, as well as the acquisition of the specified service provider, in whole or in part.

In other words, the bill talks of ensuring that the depositor is insured and protected by the relevant regulator in all possible ways, as is the case even now. Although FRDI details the processes for how the depositors’ money is protected, what is not spelled out yet is the cover provided on the loss of one’s deposit and interest.

Given the path the government has chosen in the case of smaller banks, where they are being asked to merge with bigger ones, the cover amount is not so much of an issue as the government allowing a bank to collapse. Still, the government should have made a reference to it in the bill to allay public fear.

In any case, depositors need not worry as subsection (7) of Section 52, which talks of the bail-in instrument or scheme, clearly states that this section shall not affect any liability owed by a specified service provider to depositors to the extent such deposits are covered by deposit insurance. It also talks of not affecting any liability that the specified service provider has by virtue of holding client assets.

Subsection (7)(e) of Section 52 talks of not affecting any liability any liability, so far as it is secured – thus covering all secured deposits. Subsection (7)(f) takes care of the liability owed to employees or workmen including pension liabilities of the specified service provider, except for liabilities designated as the performance-based incentive.

Depositors have little to worry about in India as even failed mutual funds, as was seen in the case of Unit Trust of India, have been bailed out by the government using taxpayer money. All the depositor has to ensure is that they are part of a bigger entity. After all, if the political damage is big enough, all depositors are bound to get paid, irrespective of the bank or financial entity involved.

 BUT, THE GOVERNMENT MUST COME OUT WITH A VERY STRONG CLAUSE TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE DEPOSITERS IN CLEAR TERMS OTHER THAN WHAT HAS BEEN ALREADY DRAFTED.

FRDI contemplating increase in deposit insurance cover: Report

FROM RS.1,00,000/- TO RS.3,50,000/- Hope the Government will amend and incorporate this to safeguard the interest of the public and the depositors.

High Court of Karnataka Quashes the LAND ACQUIRED BY KRISHNAPPA FOR BANGALORE CITY CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY AT VAJARAHALLY-KANAKAPURA ROAD-


The High Court of Karnataka has allowed the appeal by Seetharam and others of Thalagattapura, regarding the illegalities and the validity of the land acquisition by One Krishnappa and Rajendra Enterprises and directed the present owners to return 189 Acres of land to the original owners with immediate Effect, but, since, a layout has been formed by the society with the BDA approval, the present site owners or the house owners can negotiate the price (present market price) with the original owners and can get it conveyed or confirmation deed can be executed.

This legal battle had been lingering on for years and even approached the Supreme Court Of India and finally, hope the curtains are down now.

The JUDGEMENT.

bangalore city co op society judgement on 13-4-2017-page 65

bangalore city co op society judgement on 13-4-2017-page 66-

 

 

DO NOT BUY PROPERTIES WHICH HAVE BENAMI TAG-EVEN IF HAS CHANGED MANY HANDS AND THE PRESENT OWNER IS CLEAN AND TITLES ARE CLEAR – A PRESS REPORT – AN ADVICE


A Press report on the purchase Benami Properties and its consequences.

Even though, the present seller may not be the original BENAMIDAR, but, if the property has tabs, tags, links, precedence, connection, transaction and illegalities, BENAMIDAR OR if it is a benami property, DO NOT BUY IT.

A Chartered Accountant during the course of a meeting advised the buyers that even if the property has changed several hands, it must not be BOUGHT or avoid any transaction with such groups or properties for the safety and security.  The banks on the otherhand, will sanction loans or approve the projects for any and every type of properties, but the buyers must beware.

Approval of projects or sanction of loans DOES NOT CONFER ANY RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST and it is issued with all and every sort of sundry condition and is issued at the insistence of the developer.  It is NOTHING BUT A MARKETING TRICK, to appease or trap the buyers.

A PRESS REPORT IN PRAJAVANI NEWSPAPER.

benami-properties-ca-praja-vani-report-1-12-2016

PRESTIGE GETS THE BAD TASTE FOR ENCROACHMENT INDUSTRIAL LAND – SOLD BY JOY ICE CREAM – ENJOY


THE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION HAS FINALLY FLOGGED THE HIGH AND MIGHTY-THE CREDAI`S NOTED BUILDER FOR HAVING BOUGHT THE INDUSTRIAL LAND FROM JOY ICE CREAMS VIOLATING THE ALLOTMENT AND SALE DEED CONDITIONS AND TRIED TO OBTAIN THE BUILDING PLAN AT SURVEY NO.42,PATTANDUR AGRAHARA, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE.

THE STATE ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE A MARVELLOUS JOB IN RECOVERING A HIGHLY VALUABLE PROPERTY FOR VIOLATING THE CONDITIONS.

PRESTIGE IS NOT ALONE IN THIS SCAM.  VERY CLOSE TO PRESTIGE, THERE IS ANOTHER BUILDER, WHO HAS BUILT AND SOLD THE PROPERTY AND NONE OF THE RESIDENTS OR THE BUYERS ARE AWARE OF THE `BOMB` ON WHICH THEY ARE LIVING.

A SINGAPORE BASED REALTOR IS ALSO IN THE SAME BOAT, BUT, SOONER OR LATER, THE GOVERNMENT MAY WHIP HIM.

Gramathana Sites/Properties – an update on form 11-A(panchayat katha)


The Government of Karnataka has issued another directive to the PDO regarding the collection of charges and taxes from the local UNATUHROISED OR IRREGULAR PROPERTY owners within the panchayat jurisdiction(village), the properties, the usage of which are not changed and not approved by the appropriate jurisdictional authorities.

The notification issued dated 21-01-2014 directs the PDO to issue FORM NO.11-A, instead of FORM – 11 to IRREGULAR OR UNAUTHORISED properties, but, COULD NOT be presented to the SUB-REGISTRAR for the Conveyance of the property.


The buyers of property without secondary title documents from the appropriate municipal authorities must be very careful and exercise utmost caution.  In several cases, the Form No.1, Form No.9 and Form No.11 seems to have been tampered and in majority of the cases are FAKE OR BOGUS OR FABRICATED.


The buyers are advised to conduct a diligent examination of the title documents, before embarking upon the purchase.