Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group chairman Anil Ambani’s wife Tina Ambani donated Rs 5 crores to Mukesh Gandhi, Co- founder and Director- Finance MAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED (MFSL). An organisation in retail financing which marked entry of R-ADAG into the Indian micro financing world. With a vision to provide finance to the grass root level they would serve the rural and semi-urban areas. Wire money online to India with Xoom.com for as low as $4.99. Group has committed to play a serious role in bringing standard and value to the lives of the aged and the underprivileged in India. This would be an extra mile walked by the group in that direction. This cheque of Rs 5 crores is to be given away in the form of loan though at the a competitive interest rates as compared to what is offered by the banks, but importantly, it would be given to the organizations like MFSL which would be an added avenue to raise resources. R-ADAG financial services company RELIANCE CAPITAL LIMITED (RCL), is already working in collaboration with a Gujarat based group VARDAN TRUST, which could be seen as its vehicle for a national rollout of its attempt in the field of micro financing in the country. This is not just one odd big Indian Inc looking to spread its share in this field. You may also hear the names of Mukesh Ambani, Sunil Mittal (Airtel) and few others going to enter in the field. This could be sensed by some aggressive recruiting and benchmarking salaries. The hiring of Brahmanand Hegde from ICICI by the Temasek’s Fullerton makes it quite evident the way big players find micro financing an area of opportunity. This is a welcome development as the borrowers can have a greater choice. With the rise in the competition, better rate of interest would lure the mushroom growth of Indian middle class who want to add a class to their lifestyle. Be it a loan for the vehicle, studies abroad, foreign tour or housing the areas which are neglected by the banks now a days on the bases of remoteness will also have access and credit available at their disposal (of course on repayment basis). It is worth mentioning here that there is no threat to the existing players as many of them have made the system and streamlined it. They also have loyal borrowers provided if treated [...]
Archive for May 11th, 2008
Posted in 
BURGLARY REDEFINED
May 11th, 2008 
krishna Burglary means an act of breaking into premises to commit theft. A burglar may use some kind of tools to break a lock of a building and abscond with the valuables. The insurance companies however have a different concept. A burglary should have a mandatory component- violent or forcible entry and exit. This is the reason, in the absence of this component they refuse to indemnify losses caused because of burglary. That is why many claims related to burglary insurance end up as a dispute between the policy holder and the insurance company, and come up before the consumer court. The recent ruling of the supreme court of India which constitutes ‘forceful or violent entry and exit’ should go a long way in protecting the rights of policy holders. The supreme court made two highly relevant points: (a) if the entry is effected by exercise of any force, howsoever slight, it is sufficient to constitute a forcible entry as defined in the policy; (b) an entry obtained by picking the lock or forcing back the latch by means of an instrument involves the use of violence and, therefore is covered under the definition of burglary. There was a case of rejection of claim by the insurer for a burglary that took place in 1992 on the ground that it was theft and not burglary. So the main concern before the court was whether the premises of the insured fell within the meaning of the burglary as defined by the insurance company. The court held that if the entry was affected with the means of force or power, howsoever slight, it was enough to constitute an entry within the meaning of the policy. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal commission said it is agreed with the view of the lower courts that this was a case of burglary and not theft. Also where there are no signs of breaking into the premises and that neither the door nor the lock was broken. The courts in this case dismissed such a contention of the insurance company. In a case where the culprit entered into a factory through a small open gap above the locked gate, the court said this was an unlawful, unnatural entry requiring exercise of great physical force to push through the gap above the gate.Thus it is maintained that in all these instances the insured remains protected. The insurance companies [...]
