Vadra-DLF_deal,SMAP,FAQ-nuke_deal&Miranch

Dear all,
Welcome.
Vadra-DLF deal: UPA chairperson's son-in-law co. had made land deal with DLF, which had been subject matter of criticism. It had intensified with important documents being found missing. The govt. had ordered an preliminary enquiry into it and FIR is stated to be filed later. Haryana CM had told that a committee is formed for investigation. It is being searched as to who could be responsible for missing such documents? CIO had issued an affidavit in which it is told that all investigation would be done as per law.
A letter to Chief Information Officer had mentioned that on Oct.19, 2012, three member investigation team was constituted from which noting made by related official had been removed. Khemka had sought noting through RTI after which it had been revealed. He had demanded an FIR against those corrupt officials.
SMAP: Soil moisture active passive is the Satellite, which would help in predicting famine severity. It would also help determine making soil more fertile so that adequate crop yield could be made.
The Water and Carbon cycle had been studied by Scientists at NASA who had stated that if soil moisture is known, maximum crop yield could be obtained. SMP satellite would help estimate about intensity of drought and it's previous estimation would help the farmers.
However, Scientists and resources managers could also have sensitive equipments on land. But it would help in only few places. Besides, it would not be possible in difficult accessible places like Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The Satellite SMAP would provide local data related to agriculture to meet their requirements. Two microwave equipments would help study 5 cm layers of earth's crust. It would map the areas at every nine kms distance range. Two three days would be required to prepare complete map. The map would be having high resolution. The estimation would be done every year upto March.
But in India & middle east many times irrigation is being done with underground water pump. As there is no formula for underground water, irrigation in India depends upon monsoon and river water.
With regards,

M.K.Pachraiya
Original_app_mssg(1) FAQ
Foreign suppliers of atomic reactors to India cannot be sued for the damages by victims of a nuclear accident but can be held liable by the operator who has the right of recourse, government said on Sunday releasing details of the understanding reached with the US recently.

In a seven-page 'frequently asked questions' dealing with contentious issues including liability, compensation and right of recourse in case of nuclear mishap, the External Affairs Ministry said the understanding on the policy hurdles were reached after three rounds of discussions between the Indo-US Nuclear Contact Group, which met last in London, just three days before President Barack Obama arrived here on January 25.

"Based on these discussions, an understanding was reached with the US on the two outstanding issues on civil nuclear cooperation, which was confirmed by the leaders (Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Obama) on January 25, 2015," the ministry said.

 On maximum amount of liability, the ministry said that in respect of each nuclear incident there shall be the rupee equivalent of 300 million Special Drawing Rights.
Asserting that the country's Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages (CLND) Act "channels all legal liability for nuclear damage exclusively to the operator", the MEA said, "concerns" over the broad scope of Section 46, pertaining to possible actions under other laws, have been raised by suppliers, both domestic and foreign and clarified that this section "does not provide a basis for bringing claims for compensation for nuclear damage under other Acts."

The ministry further said this Section applies exclusively to the operator and does not extend to the supplier was confirmed by the Parliamentary debates at the time of the adoption of the CLND Act.

"It may be noted that the CLND Bill was adopted by a vote. During the course of the vote on various clauses of the Bill, in the Rajya Sabha two amendments were moved for clause 46 that finally became Section 46 of the CLND Act that inter-alia sought to include suppliers in this provision. Both those amendments were negatived. A provision that was expressly excluded from the statute cannot be read into the statute by interpretation," it said.

"At the same time it does not create the grounds for victims to move foreign courts. In fact that would be against the basic intent of the law to provide a domestic legal framework for victims of nuclear damage to seek compensation.

The fact that a specific amendment to introduce the jurisdiction of foreign courts was negatived during the adoption of the CLND Bill buttresses this interpretation," it further added.

The ministry also rejected suggestions that there was no 'right of recourse' for an operator against foreign suppliers, saying the Section 17 of CLND provides right of recourse.

"While it provides a substantive right to the operator, it is not a mandatory but an enabling provision" which can be included in the contract between the operator and the supplier for having a risk sharing mechanism.

"As a matter of policy, NPCIL (Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.), which is a public sector undertaking, would insist that the nuclear supply contracts contain provisions that provide for a right of recourse consistent with CLND Rules of 2011," MEA said.

Justifying setting up of the insurance pool of Rs 1,500 crores, the ministry said there were about 26 insurance pools operating around the world in countries such as France, Russia, South Africa and the US.

The India Nuclear Insurance Pool has been instituted to facilitate negotiations between the operator and the supplier concerning a right of recourse by providing a source of funds through a market based mechanism to compensate third parties for nuclear damage. It would enable the suppliers to seek insurance to cover the risk of invocation of recourse against them.

"The Pool envisages three types of policies, including a special suppliers' contingency policy for suppliers other than turn key suppliers. Operators and suppliers instead of seeing each other as litigating adversaries will see each other as partners managing a risk together. This is as important for Indian suppliers as it is for US or other suppliers," MEA said.

An international workshop will be held in New Delhi to exchange information on international experience with the insurance pools. The government also rejected the contention that all the financial burden of the compensation was passed to the tax payer, saying, "It should be understood that there is no extra burden on the taxpayer or the Government."

The CLND Act already requires NPCIL (Operator) to maintain a financial security to cover its maximum liability for civil nuclear damage (Rs 1500 crores), the MEA said, adding currently, it takes out a bank guarantee for this amount against which it pays an annual fee.

With the India Nuclear Insurance Pool (INIP), a market based international best practice will be followed and the NPCIL will take out insurance under the Pool for the same amount and just as it pays an annual fee now it will pay an annual insurance premium to the Pool, it added. The government will make available Rs 750 crores to the Insurance Pool for the first few years till the insurance companies are able to maintain it on their own.

On maximum amount of liability, the ministry said that in respect of each nuclear incident there shall be the rupee equivalent of 300 million Special Drawing Rights (SDRs).

"As the current value of 1 SDR is about Rs 87, three hundred million SDRs are equivalent to about Rs 2,610 crores. Section 6(2) of the Act lays down that the operator's maximum liability shall be Rs 1,500 crore. In case the total liability exceeds Rs 1,500 crores, as per the CLND Act, this gap of Rs 1,110 crores will be bridged by the Central Government. Beyond Rs 2610 crores, India will be able to access international funds under the CSC once it is a party to that Convention," it noted.

With India committed to ratify the international Convention of Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for nuclear damage at the earliest, India will be able to access international funds under it also.

Country's liability law also provides that the Central Government may establish a "Nuclear Liability Fund" by charging such amount of levy from the operators, in such manner, as may be prescribed. The move may result in a nominal increase of 2 to 5 paise per electricity unit to the consumer, according to sources.

"The constitution of a Nuclear Liability Fund has been under consideration for some time. Such a Fund is proposed to be built up over 10 years by levying a small charge on the operators based on the power generated from existing and new nuclear plants. This is not expected to affect the consumer's interests," the ministry said.

The ministry also ruled out any question of possible enhancement of the amount of compensation in the Act in future and its effect on recourse against suppliers with respect to existing contracts, saying there was well established jurisprudence that a change in law cannot alter the terms of an existing contract made under the then extant law.

"A retrospective law which affects the substantive vested rights of a Party under a contract would not be sustainable in a court of law," it added.

The MEA paper came in the backdrop of suggestion by various commentators that government had conceded the interests of tax payers to break the seven-year-old logjam in the Indo-US nuclear deal.

Original_app_mssg(2) Miranch
MUMBAI: Sahara is taking legal action against US-based Mirach Capital Group after the collapse of talks between the two, intended to raise funds to pay the $1.6 billion bail of Sahara's jailed boss Subrata Roy.

The talks involved a loan by Mirach secured against some of Sahara's properties including New York's Plaza hotel, but they collapsed acrimoniously.

Sahara said it had found out that a bank letter underpinning was forged, after Reuters reported evidence that Saransh Sharma, the California man who was leading the deal through Mirach, didn't have the money to pull it off.

Sahara said in a statement on Thursday it was initiating civil and criminal legal action in India and the United States for "gross criminal conduct" by Mirach and its officials.

Mirach said it was preparing its own legal action against Sahara and a statement would be released later. It has rejected Sahara's allegation it forged the bank letter and has accused Sahara of trying to "discredit and smear" its reputation.

Roy has been held in a New Delhi jail since March on contempt charges after he failed to comply with a court order to repay investors in a bond scheme that was later ruled to be illegal.

The bail money, the largest ever in India, reflects the scale of the illegal bond scheme. The
court has said investors need to be repaid as much as $7 billion including accrued interest.

In an email sent on Wednesday to Sahara and some lawyers involved in the case, a copy of which was seen by Reuters, Mirach's Sharma said though the refinancing deal talks had been called off, the Supreme Court should allow it to buy the properties.

Mirach asserted it wanted to bring a "swift resolution" in favour of Sahara's creditors, adding it had access to funds for the acquisition.

But Sahara said on Thursday it had discovered Mirach did not have its own funds and was trying to build a consortium to jointly finance the acquisition of its overseas hotels.

"As such, the financial capabilities of MCG (Mirach Capital Group) and Mr. Sharma are doubtful," it said.
ANOTHER DEAL

Supreme Court on Wednesday asked Sahara to submit a fresh plan for raising funds, which will be used to repay Sahara investors. Sahara said it was working on another deal with the aim of complying with that court order soon.

Since Roy's imprisonment, Sahara has been trying to raise cash against its properties in India and overseas, but on Wednesday, officials at the stock market regulator, the Securities and Exchange Board of India, raised questions about the group's ownership of some properties in India.

In a statement, Sahara said it had legal documents to prove the ownership of all its real estate assets. "We are sure and confident of our title and SEBI's statement does not matter when the document itself speaks of clear title," the company added.

SEBI took Sahara to the Supreme Court to seek compensation for the millions of investors the regulator says were burnt in an illegal bond scheme sold by the group.