| Panel identifies 9 sectors for mandatory Indian control | |
PAVING WAY FOR JET- ETIHAD DEAL CLEARANCE
PUTTING POLICY IN ORDER Mayaram panel's key recommendations Sectors Current FDI provision/ route Suggested FDI / route Broadcasting 26%( including FII) / FIPB 49%( including portfolio) / auto Print media 26%( including FII) / FIPB 49%( including portfolio) / auto Petroleum & natural gas refining 49%/ FIPB nod needed for PSUs 49% / auto Commexes 49%( 23% FII) / FIPB route 49%( including portfolio) / auto Stock exchanges, depositories, 49%( 23% FII) / FIPB 49%( including Portfolio) / auto clearing corps Power exchanges 49%( 23% FII) / FIPB 49%/ auto Insurance 26%/ auto 49%/ auto Defence production 26%/ FIPB 49% ( including portfolio) / FIPB Private security agencies 49%/ FIPB 49%( including portfolio) / FIPB Broadcasting: FM Radio, uplinking news & current affairs; Print media: Newspapers & periodicals dealing with news & current affairs SURAJEET DAS GUPTA & INDIVJAL DHASMANA New Delhi, 23 June The Arvind Mayaram committee, set up to liberalise the country's foreign direct investment ( FDI) policy, has recommended nine sectors be categorised as those where 'Indian ownership' and 'control' will be mandatory. These are FM radio, uplinking news & current affairs, print media ( news & current affairs), commodity exchanges, stock exchanges along with depositories and clearing corporation, power exchanges, petroleum &natural gas refining, insurance, defence production and private security agencies. The committee's recommendation will also pave the way for the JetEtihad deal, as it has recommended amendment of the stipulation under the civil aviation requirements that effective control and ownership be retained with Indians in airlines. It has proposed to raise the FDI cap in airlines to 74 per cent. Abu Dhabi- based Etihad has agreed to buy 24 per cent in India's Jet Airways but the deal has been facing delays over ' effective control'. However, when Indian control and ownership cease to exist, the FDI component has to seek the Foreign Investment Promotion Board's ( FIPB's) approval. This means the deal could come without FIPB vetting. The committee has suggested FDI be capped at 49 per cent in nine sectors and clearance ( except for defence production and private security agencies) be through the automatic route. It has clarified FDI will not include portfolio investments in two of these sectors —insurance and petroleum &natural gas refining. To protect India's strategic interests in defence production and private security agencies, foreign investments in these sectors will not be cleared via the automatic route and will be subject to FIPB scrutiny. In its recommendations, the Mayaram panel has said that despite 51 per cent foreign investment, firms in these sectors will be under Indian ownership and control. The definition of control is being worked out. Turn to Page 8 > | | Panel identifies 9 | |
sectors... The recommendations, if accepted, will mean significant liberalisation. This is because in some sectors, such as commodity exchanges, stock exchanges and power exchanges, though up to 49 per cent FDI is allowed, the proposals currently need to be vetted by FIPB. Petroleum & natural gas refining companies, too, can bring in up to 49 per cent FDI but for publicsector companies that needs to come via FIPB. Now, these are proposed to come under the automatic route.
The panel has also proposed increasing the FDI cap for the insurance sector — from the current 26 per cent to 49 per cent. But that will require amendment to the Insurance Act which is pending in Parliament. Additionally, the committee has proposed that FDI cap for FM radio, uplinking of news and current affairs, publishing of periodicals and newspapers dealing with news ¤t affairs be raised from 26 per cent ( including foreign institutional investors) to 49 per cent. It has also suggested that these investments should be approved through the automatic route, and not via FIPB. However, foreign investment in these sectors will require licensing by the information & broadcasting ministry and security clearance by the home ministry. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will discuss these recommendations with senior ministers early next month. After that, it will be taken up by Cabinet by third week of July. The committee has identified certain sectors where some kind of Indian participation is necessary, and to block special resolutions on companies' boards, Indians must have a 26 per cent stake. These are primarily the sectors that are still in their nascent stage or where financial security is needed. These include banking, multi- brand retail trading, satellite establishment &operations and foreign airlines' investment in domestic scheduled passenger airlines — where FDI will be increased to 74 per cent. Among these sectors, private banking already has the requirements proposed by the panel. As such, there is a status quo in this sector. Multi- brand retail trading is allowed up to take up to 49 per cent FDI, subject to state's approval under the FIPB route. The panel has suggested that sectors where Indian control and ownership are not material, 100 per cent foreign investment be allowed. Among these categories fall telecom, mining, single- brand retail, pharma, holding companies, asset reconstruction company and the tea sector, including plantations. However, after an entity ceases to be under Indian ownership and control, the foreign investment will have to come from the FIPB route. Telecom currently has 74 per cent FDI cap, while single- brand retail can take 100 per cent FDI ( but under the FIPB route). In pharma, FDI is allowed under the FIPB route for brownfield (existing) projects. However, the committee has proposed that the sectors —IP services in telecom, broadcasting carriage services, uplinking and downlinking of non- news and current affairs and TV channels, printing, publishing of magazine and facsimile edition of foreign newspapers, existing airport projects, nonscheduled air transport services, credit information companies and courier services —be placed under 100 per cent foreign investment under automatic route. The rationale is that the nature of these sectors is akin to infrastructure. Currently, 100 per cent FDI is allowed under the automatic route in infrastructure, energy and manufacturing. The committee is for keeping these intact. | | | LTUs might become mandatory | |
VRISHTI BENIWAL
Bangalore, 23 June The finance ministry is considering a proposal to make Large Taxpayer Units ( LTUs) mandatory for some categories of taxpayers. The idea is to help check evasion: LTUs act as a single window facilitation centre for all large entities paying excise duty, service tax and income tax. A committee of the Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT) has looked into various aspects of LTUs, including making it mandatory, having an independent budgetary authority and undertaking a taxpayer satisfaction survey, said an official from the income tax department. If the LTUs are made mandatory, the finance ministry might review the thresholds for availing the facility. At present, those paying excise or service tax of over ₹ 5 crore or advance tax of over ₹ 10 crore in ayear are eligible to register with LTUs. Currently, LTUs are functioning in Bangalore, Chennai, Mumbai and Delhi. However, officials said, the scheme had not taken off very well in some centres, with not many volunteering for fear of a closer scrutiny by the department. There is also a proposal to open an LTU in Kolkata. If more assesses come to LTUs, it will help increase government revenues while lowering administrative costs. For instance, 56 assessees have registered with the LTU in Bangalore, set up in 2006. These account for 26 per cent of the revenue collected in the region. Toyota Kirloskar Motors, Bosch, IBM India, Canara Bank, HP India Sales Ltd, Vijaya Bank and State Bank of Mysore are some of the clients at LTU Bangalore. The Shome panel on General Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR) has also suggested making LTUs compulsory for a specified class of taxpayers, in line with international practice. The concept of an LTU was introduced to assist large taxpayers in filing of documents, refund claims and settlement of disputes. As LTUs handle cases of companies having presence at several locations, the ministry believes these can play a crucial role in tax scrutiny of large taxpayers, through a closer coordination between income tax and excise departments. " This enables in- depth analysis of the finances of big corporates and helps prevent tax evasion. The LTU may become more effective if the audit cycle of the income tax, service tax and excise departments is aligned," stated a position paper issued by the finance ministry on unaccounted money. Move could be for some large classes of corporate taxpayers to aid combined scrutiny of operations and to check evasion WHAT LTUS DO |Filing of returns/ documents at one place |Electronic filing of return and tax payment |Single point interaction with tax officers |Inter- unit transfer of Cenvat credit |Taxpayers not subjected to mandatory audit |Uniformity in all tax related issues |Faster disposal of claims and other processes | | Consumer forum can use forensic examination to settle disputes | |
A consumer forum has to follow a summary procedure for the adjudication of complaints. But at times, the authenticity and credibility of the evidence is challenged as fabricated. In such a situation, sometimes, a consumer forum refuses to weigh a complaint on the grounds that it involves adjudication of complicated facts. It, instead, asks the parties to approach the regular civil court. This is incorrect.
In such a case, a consumer forum isn't helpless; it can obtain evidence by referring the documents for examination by experts. This significant ruling was given by a National Commission bench of judges K S Chaudhari and Suresh Chandra in revision petition number 2008 of 2012 on February 11, 2012 ( The New India Assurance Co Ltd v/ s Sree Sree Madan Mohan Rice Mill). The rice mill claimed a fire had broken out at its office- cum- manufacturing unit. An insurance claim was lodged for the loss. The insurance company didn't settle the claim. Aggrieved, the mill filed a complaint before the West Bengal State Commission, claiming a compensation of ₹ 99 lakh. To support and substantiate its claim, the mill relied on photographs of the fire and the loss it had caused. The insurance company questioned the authenticity of photographs, alleging these had been manipulated and fabricated. It claimed the investigator appointed had approached the Central Forensic Laboratory to examine the photographs, but the laboratory had declined to examine those, unless the police or judicial authorities requested such a move. Therefore, the insurer urged the State Commission to refer the photographs to the laboratory for forensic examination. The mill opposed this application, claiming the surveyor hadn't raised any doubt about the photographs; neither had the insurance company made such an allegation in its reply filed before the State Commission. The mill contended the application was aimed merely at delaying proceedings. Upholding the mill's contention, the State Commission rejected the insurance company's application. Subsequently, the insurance company filed a revision petition before the National Commission, challenging the State Commission's refusal to refer the photographs for examination. The National Commission said the insurance company had alleged the photographs had been tampered and manufactured by super- imposing one photograph over another so that a claim could be made. These photographs were taken by the mill owner, not by an independent person. Even if the surveyor didn't question the genuineness of the photographs, the insurance company's primary defence was its challenge to the photographs' credibility. Under such circumstances, the National Commission said the application filed by the insurance company shouldn't have been rejected. Further, it said the Consumer Protection Act empowered redressal tribunals to seek the report of an analyst from an appropriate laboratory. If the photographs were referred to the laboratory for forensic examination, it would help in arriving at a correct conclusion, it added. With this, the National Commission set aside the State Commission's order and directed it to send the disputed photographs to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Since the insurance company had disputed the validity of the photographs, the commission directed it to bear the cost of the examination. This judgment is significant: Even in cases in which documentary evidence is disputed, a consumer forum has the power to adjudicate the complaint by seeking a report from a competent laboratory. The cost of such an examination wouldn't be a burden on the consumer, as it would have to be borne by the party that challenges the document's validity. If the document is found to be false or fabricated, the consumer would definitely be penalised. The author is a consumer activist CONSUMER IS KING JEHANGIR GAI | | | | | | | | | LEGAL DIGEST | |
Winning a suit is half the battle
Even if a litigant gets a decree in his favour, it is along time before he will be able to enjoy the result, as the trouble for him starts when he tries to execute it, the Supreme Court said in its recent judgment, Satyawati vs Rajinder Singh. This was the problem pointed out by the Privy Council in a 1872 case and the situation has not changed after centuries, the judgment pointed out. In this case, Satyawati won a property case in 1996, but she has not been able to get the property in Faridabad, near Delhi, till today due to the expensive and tiresome execution proceedings. She has been shunted from the executing court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court and now the Supreme Court. According to the courts below, the decree was not 'executable'. The Supreme Court has now asked the executing court to pass its order without unreasonable delay. It said, " if the decreeholder is unable to enjoy the fruits of his success his entire effort would be in vain. The delay benefits unscrupulous parties and the person in wrongful possession delights in the delay in procedural complications." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PSUs frustrate arbitration The Delhi High Court has appointed its former Chief Justice A P Shah as the sole arbitrator in a long- pending dispute between a private company and a public sector undertaking as the latter has " forfeited its right to appoint an arbitrator" because of long delays, adjournments and change of arbitrators. In this case, Ishvakoo ( India) Ltd vs National Projects Construction Corporation, the parties agreed in the arbitration clause that disputes will be settled by a person appointed by the chairman and managing director of the government company. One of them quit after seven years of futile exercise stating that it has become "unnecessary and impossible". The next one also quit after nearly two years. His successor also failed to carry the proceedings forward. So Ishvakoo approached the high court for appointing a sole arbitrator. In a similar case, the Supreme Court had stated that the delays and frequent changes in the arbitral tribunal when a PSU is involved made a " mockery of the process of arbitration." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MoEF order on fly ash quashed The Madras High Court has set aside an order of the Ministry of Environment and Forests directing the Tamil Nadu General & Distribution Corporation to comply with the Fly Ash Utilisation Amendment Notification of November 2009. The notification granted incentives to brick manufacturers at the cost of electricity generating companies, " which actually suffocate under accumulated losses running to thousands of crores of rupees." The notification obliged the corporation to provide free of cost 20 per cent of the fly ash generated by them from thermal plants to other manufacturers. The policy was meant to reduce fly ash polluting air and utilising it for related industries. " But to direct the generating companies to give free of cost, 20 per cent of fly ash generated by coal/ thermal power plants, infringed upon the property rights of the generating companies, the judgment said, and added that " the very object of the Electricity Act, 2003 is to liberate the state from the heavy burden imposed upon them by the respective state electricity boards, in the form of mounting losses." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hotels fight for Orchid name In a dispute between two hotels over the word Orchid in their names, the Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal last week set aside the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks and asked him to proceed with the registration of their respective names. The registrar rejected the application of Royal Orchid Hotels of Bangalore for the word Orchid because as a Mumbai hotel, Kamat Hotels, used the same word for certain services. The board stated that the names cannot be confused. " The class of customers is of the high income group and there is no likelihood of confusion especially where the mark relates to service. Even if the mark related to goods bought off the shelf, we doubt if the word Orchid and the Royal Orchid will cause confusion," the judgment said. MJ ANTONY | | Legal nod for SEZ incentive withdrawal | |
In a significant setback to businesses operating in special economic zones (SEZs), the Karnataka High Court (HC) in its recent judgment dismissed writ petitions filed by SEZ developers and operators challenging the constitutional validity of amendments to levy minimum alternate tax ( MAT) and dividend distribution tax ( DDT), introduced by the Finance Act of 2011.
Before delving into the principles enunciated by the HC, it will be useful to recapitulate the background of the SEZ law. The SEZ scheme was introduced in 2000 with an ambitious and directional change of Foreign Trade Policy to provide an internationally competitive hasslefree environment for foreign exchange earners, promoting FDI and augmenting employment opportunities in line with the successful Chinese experience. To provide impetus and instill confidence on stability of SEZ regime, the Ministry of Commerce proposed enactment of the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005, which saw a safe passage in Parliament, in June 2005. The SEZ law proposed modifications to direct and indirect tax enactments, including exemptions from the application of MAT and DDT. The law was largely labelled as successful from an FDI and employment generation standpoint, though, criticised for institutionalisation of the land acquisition process and fiscal incentives standpoint. The fiscal giveaways were a constant source of stress between the commerce and finance ministries, given the rising tax revenue foregone leading the latter to mull over withdrawal of exemptions. The proposal to move away from all forms of profit- driven incentives and sunset clause for SEZs was evident in the first draft of the Direct Tax Code ( DTC) as early as 2009. In the government, there was a growing suspicion that SEZs were set up solely as a device to exploit tax benefits and were defeating an overarching objective for infrastructure- driven zones. While most believed that government would not backtrack on tax benefits before the DTC sets in, the Finance Bill, 2011, introduced asunset clause withdrawing exemptions for MAT and DDT. The writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of sunset clause as being arbitrary, beyond legislative competence and violative of fundamental rights ( Article 14) of the Constitution. The doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were invoked to buttress the petition. It was contended that an express promise for exemption from MAT and DDT incentive prompted investors to opt for the SEZ scheme and its abrupt withdrawal has led to injustice and breach of promise by government. The HC in exercising its power of judicial review ( Article 226) under the Constitution is expected to limit itself to testing the validity of the statute on the touchstone of established principles since strictly speaking, it is not the job of the judiciary to question the wisdom of law makers, unless the law is arbitrary. The HC reiterating that a law made by the Parliament can be struck down solely on grounds of legislative competence and violation of fundamental rights has given its stamp of approval for withdrawal of incentives. Dismissing the writs, the HC reasoned that as a settled principle, there could be no perpetual tax exemption and amendments were aimed at removing discrimination between SEZ and non- SEZ companies. Adverting to the application of doctrine of the promissory estoppel in matters of legislation, the HC reiterated a settled position that there is no promissory estoppel against statute. In light of the constitutional principles given that Indian courts show restraint in invalidating a legislation, one would find little fault with the reasoning, though the HC's observation on discriminations seems to have backfired on the SEZ and is surprising. The controversy surrounding tax exemptions to SEZs seems more on stability of policy framework than on legal issues, though the SC will have a final say on legality of the amendment. A valid law made in line with the constitutional mandate cannot be struck down merely by resorting to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. As such legislature can never be precluded from exercising its legislative power by resorting to the doctrine of legitimate expectations. However, as a matter of policy, the legislature should have shown empathy and vision before withdrawal. Investors feel nervous on stability of policy and short- changed in such situations having acted on the promise of tax incentives and committed investments. Though it's not appropriate to entirely attribute slowdown of SEZ investments to tax policy change ( investments fell from average of ₹ 40,000 crore up to 2010 to 176 in the first half of 2011), the timing for change in law could not have been worse. A big question to ponder over is, if fall in SEZ investment can be addressed by partly restoring MAT and DDT. Author is chairman of BMR Advisors. Views are entirely personal. Contribution by Rahul Yadav The issue to look at is whether fall in SEZ investment can be addressed by partly restoring MAT and dividend distribution tax SIMPLY TAX MUKESH BUTANI | | Independent directors are answerable to stakeholders | |
Did independent directors on the Ranbaxy board, during 2006 to 2008, fail in their oversight function? Truly speaking, adequate information is not available in the public domain to evaluate the performance of independent directors on the Ranbaxy board, during that period. Making independent directors responsible for the wrong doing of the company is a knee jerk reaction.
Whenever a fraud, unethical behaviour of employees and management, regulatory violations, or any such incident that hurts the interest of the company and its stakeholders comes to light, we quickly come to the conclusion that independent directors had failed in their duties. In the case of Ranbaxy, the reactions are no different. Such a reaction is not surprising. Stakeholders place high expectations on independent directors, particularly when they are highly respected and successful professionals and enjoying high stature in the society. Stakeholders believe that nothing wrong can happen before their watchful eyes. We expect that one who talks about responsible business from different platforms walks the talk and dissociates himself/ herself from a company that demonstrates its disregard for the principles of responsible business. These expectations lead to our knee- jerk reaction of holding independent directors responsible for wrong doings of the company. There is a gap between what independent directors can do and what we expect them to do. The best of risk management, internal control, internal audit and performance management systems provide only reasonable assurance that the company will achieve its objectives. This is so because every system has inherent weaknesses. Independent directors' responsibility is limited to ensuring that appropriate systems have been installed and they are operating efficiently and effectively. The best available system might not be the most appropriate system for the company at a particular point in time. Choice is made on cost- benefit analysis. Availability of resources, including capabilities, is also considered in making the choice. At a particular point of time, a company might be exposed to higher than the desirable level of risks due to lack of resources and capabilities. In that situation, the responsibility of independent directors is to see that the executive management takes the right corrective actions, for example, special initiatives to build capabilities. Independent directors cannot be held responsible if some risk event, which was identified and assessed but could not be mitigated due to inadequacy of resources, occurs causing loss to the company. Independent directors are not liable for the poor performance of the company due to poor strategy or inefficient strategy implementation, provided they have applied their mind and deliberated important issues diligently in board meetings. Although the board approves strategy and review performance, it is the executive management that is primarily responsible for formulating and implementing strategies. Independent directors bring independent views in deliberating strategies and performance. They seldom reject strategies proposed by the executive management. Usually, they oppose a proposal only if it clearly aims at enriching a particular group or it is not aligned to the purpose of the company or it does not address reasonable expectations and concerns of one or more stakeholder groups. Re- appointment of M R Narayana Murthy as executive chairman of Infosys vindicates this view. The illustrious Board of Infosys could not check the sliding of the company's performance. Independent directors should not be held responsible for the same. Independent directors cannot and should not own up the responsibility for formulating and implementing strategies. If, they get involved in the same, they might lose their independence. Companies Bill, 2012, incorporates the Code For Independent Directors (Schedule IV). We may expect that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs ( MCA) will enforce accountability of independent directors more rigorously after the enactment of the new Companies Act. MCA can use its right to examine Board Minutes and other records to collect information. For example, audit of Ranbaxy's board minutes and other records for the period 2006 to 2008 might provide answers to such questions as whether the independent directors had asked for a report on the deliberations in the Science Committee, what was the tenor of deliberations in the board and what direction the board had issued to the executive management. Audit of the minutes would also throw light on how much importance was given to notices issued by the US Regulator and whether the Board approved replies to those notices. Often minutes do not record detail deliberations in the meeting. As a first step, MCA should examine minutes and other records to identify deficiencies in the board processes and records. It should give a chance to companies to correct those deficiencies. Companies Bill, 2012, provides immunity to only those independent directors who act diligently. Independent directors can protect themselves from liabilities only if they ensure that important issues are included in the agenda and the minutes record deliberations and decisions appropriately. They should identify important issues by scanning media reports and other reports on the company and the industry and by reviewing minutes of earlier meetings. If an independent director continues to feel uncomfortable over the board process for along period ( say, one year), he/ she should resign from the board. Let us not lend our names or join Boards only for stature and perks associated with the position of independent director. Let us not cheat stakeholders. Affiliations: Professor and Head, School of Corporate Governance and Public Policy, Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs; Advisor (Advanced Studies), Institute of Cost Accountants of India; Chairman, Riverside Management Academy Private Limited Email: asish. bhattacharyya@ gmail. com Companies Bill, 2012, provides immunity to only those independent directors who act diligently ACCOUNTANCY ASISH K BHATTACHARYYA | | I- T dept slaps ₹ 30- cr service tax notice on Amity
Says Lucknow campus is coaching centre; university files case | |
KALPANA PATHAK
Mumbai, 23 June The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence ( DGCEI) has served a ₹ 30- crore service tax liability show- cause notice to Amity Universitys Lucknow campus. The 25- page notice says the Lucknow campus of Amity is an " off- campus" centre and not approved by the University Grants Commission and hence is " not authorised by law". "It appears that Amity University, Lucknow campus has not discharged its service tax liability and, thereby, defrauded the government exchequer, made wilful misstatement ,suppressed vital facts from the department and contravened the provisions of Finance Act 1994, as amended and the rules made thereunder," the notice sent by Samanjasa Das, additional director general in the directorate, said. The notice also said service tax amounting to ₹ 28.08 crore, in addition to education cess of ₹ 56 lakh and secondary and higher education cess of ₹ 28 lakh for the period between October 2007 and September 2012, should be recovered from Amity under the provision to sub- section 1 of section 73 of the Finance Act. Amity Universitys gross revenue received ( fee) from students between October 2007 to September 2012 was ₹ 291 crore. The services performed by the Lucknow campus were required to be classified as services rendered by commercial training or coaching centres liable to service tax, the notice said. Off- campus study centres not affiliated to the UGC attract aservice tax of 12.36 per cent on their total income. Educational institutions issuing certificate, diploma or degree or any other educational qualification recognised by law do not come under the service tax net. Amity University has filed a case against the order. According to the Allahabad High Court website, the case was filed on May 29 this year. The status of the case, however, is not known. Amity University did not respond to an email questionnaire sent last week. Atul Chauhan, president at Amity Education Group, did not respond to calls made to his cell phone. Amity University is run by the Ritnand Balved Education Foundation. The directorate is confident about its claims. " The documents provided by the group revealed without an iota of doubt that the Lucknow campus of Amity was an off- campus centre of AU, Noida, albeit without any statutory approval as required under law". The notice adds that in a letter dated September 13, 2012, UGC said Amity was not included in the list of universities maintained by it. UGC also made it explicitly clear that it had no information about any Amity University Lucknow campus. The campus conducts courses ranging from BBA, LLB, BCOM. LLB to BA. LLB from Bar council of India. It also offers B. Ed course from National Council for Teacher Education, B. Arch course from Council of Architecture and B. Pharma course from Pharmacy Council of India (PCI). DGCEI says while applying for recognition of B. Pharma course from PCI, or for that matter, for recognition of other courses from other statutory authorities, Amity had misdeclared the factual position before these authorities and had obtained recognitions which were contrary to the provisions of the UGC CAT and regulations. The Lucknow campus thus could not be termed as an off- campus centre or constituent unit. | | | | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment