PSIEC announces policy for clubbing and de-clubbing of plots
2
Chandigarh: The Punjab govt has unveiled a comprehensive policy for the clubbing and de-clubbing of industrial plots, while also establishing a long-awaited appellate authority to handle appeals over cancelled allotments, industries minister Tarunpreet Singh Sond announced on Saturday here.
The new policy, notified on May 19 and which the cabinet approved on April 24, aims to bring procedural clarity and land-use efficiency across the state's industrial estates and focal points under the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation (PSIEC). Sond said the policy responds to years of demands from industrialists seeking a streamlined mechanism to merge or divide adjoining plots to support business expansion, improve operational efficiency and optimise land utilisation.
The rules apply to all PSIEC-controlled plots, excluding booths and sheds.
To be eligible for clubbing or de-clubbing, plots must be owned by the same entity and be of the same type — either leasehold or freehold — with all dues cleared. Applications must be supported by valid lease or conveyance deeds. A fee of 1% of the current reserve price of the total plot area — capped at ₹50 lakh — will apply. De-clubbing will only be allowed in line with the original layout plan and subject to zoning laws, building codes and environmental regulations, the minister said.
"This step will not only streamline industrial development but also create opportunities for project growth in a regulated and transparent manner," Sond said.
Separately, the PSIEC has also operationalised an Appellate Authority — notified on May 7 — to address grievances related to cancelled plots. The authority will offer relief to affected allottees whose plots were cancelled for reasons such as failing to begin production, violating zoning rules, or defaulting on instalments.
The govt had cancelled 700-odd plots in recent years, and efforts to restore those stalled after a previous restoration scheme lapsed in March 2022.
Affected allottees now have until Sept 30 to appeal for reinstatement. In future cases, appeals must be filed within six months of the cancellation date. "This authority will reduce unnecessary litigation, provide applicants with fair hearing opportunities, and bring transparency to the reinstatement process," Sond said.
MSID:: 121536934 413 |
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
HC upholds gratuity benefits for contract workers at Air India facility
Hyderabad: In a significant victory for contract workers, the Telangana high court has upheld the orders directing Air India to pay gratuity benefits to 13 workers engaged through a contractor at its central training establishment in Ferozguda, Secunderabad. A division bench comprising Justices Challa Kodanda Ram and Nagesh Bheemapaka dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by Air India challenging the rulings of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act . Both authorities had held Air India liable as a 'model employer' for the workers engaged in its facility. Air India contended that the workers were employed under a works contract through a third-party firm—MKR Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Works—and not through a manpower supply arrangement, and hence were not eligible for gratuity benefits. The airline sought to quash the 2018 orders of the Appellate Authority. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad The workers had filed claims asserting that, although formally employed by the contractor, their services were rendered exclusively for Air India, thereby entitling them to gratuity under the Act. Air India, however, argued that it had merely awarded a time-bound contract to the contractor, with no direct employer-employee relationship with the workers. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Brandi Passante's Is So Thin Now & Looks Like A Model. Lawyers Favorite Undo The airline maintained that it only had a limited supervisory role as per the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and bore no obligation to extend gratuity or other service benefits. Rejecting this contention, the high court emphasised that Air India, as a public sector undertaking, is expected to uphold constitutional values, including the dignity of labour. The court held that gratuity, being a social welfare benefit, should not be denied on technical grounds, particularly when the workers had rendered long and continuous service at the establishment. Accordingly, the court upheld the authorities' findings and dismissed Air India's petitions, directing the airline to pay the gratuity dues to the 13 contract workers.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Epstein's ghost haunts the Trump-Murdoch alliance
'I told Rupert Murdoch it was a Scam, that he shouldn't print this Fake Story,' wrote Donald Trump on July 17th, after the Wall Street Journal reported that in 2003 the president had sent a lewd birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein , a convicted paedophile who died in prison in 2019. 'But he did, and now I'm going to sue his ass off, and that of his third rate newspaper.' The lawsuit was delivered the following day. The bust-up between Mr Trump and Mr Murdoch, whose media empire includes Fox News as well as the Journal and other conservative-leaning titles, is the latest example of the president's aim to enforce a kind of lèse-majesté rule against the American media. It also marks a twist in the relationship between the president and America's last real news-media baron. Mr Murdoch, an influential supporter of Mr Trump, may prove to be less of a pushover than some of his peers. Mr Trump's recent lawsuits against critical news outlets have been flimsy but fruitful. Earlier this month Paramount Global paid $16m to settle a far-fetched complaint from the president about an interview on CBS's '60 Minutes'. In December Disney paid $15m over an ABC report that had wrongly said Mr Trump was found liable for rape, rather than sexual assault, a case which lawyers considered trickier but winnable. Mr Trump alluded to these successful claims when announcing his lawsuit against the Journal. The legal environment for journalists in America, benign on paper, has lately grown more hostile. Juries, and some judges, have become more mistrustful of the mainstream media (Mr Trump has filed his latest complaint in Florida, where he can expect a relatively friendly jury). And since Mr Trump's re-election, defendants fear that if they do not fold they may be penalised by government agencies. Paramount's settlement was widely seen as a bid to avoid interference by the Federal Communications Commission in its proposed merger with Skydance Media (the company denies this). The Journal looks like a harder target for Mr Trump. It has reported deeply on the Epstein story, previously digging into the sex offender's links to businessmen such as Bill Gates. Its parent company, Dow Jones, has a history of fighting libel cases, including a decades-long duel with Lee Kuan Yew, a former prime minister of Singapore. The Journal and Dow Jones are 'steadfast in defending their journalism', says Stuart Karle, who was general counsel of the Journal until soon after Mr Murdoch acquired it in 2007. 'I have seen nothing that indicates to me that commitment to defend published stories has changed.' The government's leverage over News Corp, the Murdoch-controlled company that ultimately owns the Journal, also looks limited. Whereas Disney and Paramount appeared willing to sacrifice the reputations of ABC and CBS in order to protect more valuable segments of their respective companies, the Journal is a central part of the Murdoch empire. In the latest financial year Dow Jones was the largest contributor to profits at News Corp. And the federal government has limited control over print media. (Fox Corporation, the other Murdoch-controlled company, relies on government-issued broadcasting licences, however.) How deep does the apparent rift between Mr Trump and Mr Murdoch go? Some conservatives see the Epstein story as a calculated move to bring down the president. The conspiracy-minded draw attention to a meeting in June between Mr Murdoch and J.D. Vance, the ambitious vice-president. Steve Bannon, a strategist in Mr Trump's first administration, has said that the Journal's recent Epstein story was a 'kill-shot on President Trump because he had the stones to stand up to the Murdochs'. (According to Michael Wolff, a journalist, Mr Bannon gave Epstein some media training in 2019.) Others think there is less to the spat than meets the eye. 'People are treating this as a vendetta. This is a fuck-up,' says Claire Enders, a media analyst and longtime Murdoch-watcher. She suspects that Mr Trump's demand that the story be dropped, apparently delivered to Mr Murdoch at a football match, may not have been heard or understood by the 94-year-old. What's more, she adds, Mr Murdoch is keen to avoid any suggestion that he has editorial control over his companies, amid a libel complaint against Fox News by Smartmatic, a provider of voting systems. 'He doesn't want to be seen to have the power to cut a story—and it is scrupulously denied him, to avoid trouble with Smartmatic,' says Ms Enders. For Mr Trump, a lawsuit against the mainstream media may seem like a way to unite his supporters, who are divided over his handling of the Epstein affair. But if the case moves forward then the discovery process, in which each side may request documents from the other, may be uncomfortable. 'Discovery will probe his relationship with Epstein, his crude communications generally and with Epstein and other convicted felons as well,' predicts Mr Karle. That may lead to more revelations—and more unwelcome headlines.
Time of India
5 days ago
- Time of India
India's Gen Z billionaires are bored with business
The family that ran India's largest luggage maker for more than half a century is packing it in, with control of Mumbai-based VIP Industries Ltd. passing to private equity. 'What do I do?' Dilip Piramal , the 75-year-old chairman, wondered aloud in a TV interview after announcing the sale. 'The younger generation is not interested in management.' Piramal isn't the only aging businessperson to have run out of successors: 'Today among the scions of some of the most affluent families of India, someone is an artist, someone wants to be a sportsman, someone wants to run a small restaurant. There's nothing wrong in that. It's the modern trend, people want to do their own things.' Two hundred years ago, that 'modern' trend among young people used to be enterprise. That's when families like Piramal's began to spread out of the Marwar region in land-locked northern India to take advantage of British-controlled trading opportunities in the port cities of Bombay and Calcutta — now Mumbai and Kolkata. Cotton, jute, and opium sold to China provided the seed capital to the Marwari business community for everything from textile mills to cement factories. By the early 20th century, these emerging industrial empires were large enough to challenge the colonial masters and their commercial interests. The likes of Ghanshyam Das Birla openly supported Mahatma Gandhi's campaign for independence, even as they outran rivals like Andrew Yule & Co. The Birla House in Delhi, a prominent hub for the freedom movement, was also where Gandhi was assassinated. As the sway of family firms continued after India's 1947 independence, it was believed that newer generations would always be available to take over the reins. Below the surface, however, the link between ownership and management has been weakening for some time. Piramal's daughter, Radhika, a Harvard University MBA, was the chief executive officer for a few years before quitting in 2017 and relocating with her spouse to London. Her same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in India. The luggage maker was back to being in the care of professional managers, a double-edged sword considering that a rival firm set up by a former managing director is now three-fifths bigger than VIP by market value. The heirs of prominent business families — millennial and Gen Z billionaires — are setting their own life goals. It's the sensible thing to do. In a labor-surplus economy, access to capital through clan networks and strategic marital alliances was family-run firms' core advantage. But via public markets and private equity, finance is now available to a much wider section of entrepreneurs. Risk-taking has been democratized. That frees up younger members of business dynasties to try new things. Someone recently asked the singer-songwriter Ananya Birla on social media if she was from the family behind India's largest-selling cement brand. She is indeed the great-great-granddaughter of Ghanshyam Das Birla. But from financial inclusion among rural women to a recently launched beauty brand, the 31-year-old Oxford graduate has her own interests that are independent of the sprawling commodities behemoth led by her father. Though they're from Tamil Nadu in southern India, and not Marwar in Rajasthan, it's the same for philanthropist Roshni Nadar Malhotra, the chair of HCL Technologies Ltd., a $48 billion outsourcing powerhouse founded by her dad. He gifted her the family's controlling stake in March. Running the tech firm's day-to-day operations is someone else's job. Nadar is passionate about wildlife conservation, among other things. Piramal is retaining 20% of VIP. But that's just a financial investment in a publicly traded security. He'll pare it down. Owners of unlisted firms are proceeding more slowly. A few months ago, the family behind Haldiram's, a 90-year-old Indian snacks brand, parted with a minority stake to Singapore's Temasek Holdings Pte and other global investors. Media reports put the firm's valuation at $10 billion. A scenario where India's business elite is basically a bunch of rich financiers, living off accumulated wealth, doesn't appeal to everyone. 'What concerns me is that many in this generation are taking the easy way out, especially in the post-Covid world,' says billionaire Uday Kotak , who retired two years ago as managing director of Kotak Mahindra Bank, which he founded in the 1980s as a finance company. 'They claim to be managing family offices and investments, trading in the stock market, allocating funds to mutual funds, and treating it as a full-time job.' But they are probably just smart to realize that they're sandwiched. On one hand, access to capital is no longer their abiding advantage. On the other, real economic power is concentrating in fewer hands. Viral Acharya, a former central bank deputy governor, has shown in his research that India's top five nonfinancial groups have expanded their share of total assets by 8 percentage points in 30 years, whereas the next five business groups' sway has shrunk by roughly the same amount. From cement, steel, autos, power, and paints to retail, telecom, media, finance, and aviation, a handful of powerful conglomerates are pouncing on every new opportunity. No wonder the successors of tycoons like Mukesh Ambani, Gautam Adani and Sajjan Jindal are closely involved in management. Children from middling business families probably don't see the point of entering a new field only to see it being disrupted by a startup — or dominated by a bigger player. Many more Indian assets will change hands as their family owners ultimately lose interest in tending to them. In heading for the exit, Piramal, the luggage maker, has given a good indication of the direction of travel.
