Why India’s sugar production in 2017-18 will leave a bitter taste in the mouth

Standard

While the ISMA trading body has estimated sugar opening values ​​on 10/1/16 in the 77 lakh MT, on the ground, it may not exceed 65 lakh TM. This is the hard truth.

For the 2016-17 season, ISMA has revised its estimated sugar production reduced from 234 lakh lakh TM to 213 MT and now more than 203 lakh TM, which is around 201 lakh TM and maybe just below 203 lakh TM .

ISMA is trying to reduce the sugar scarcity scenario and the precarious situation on the ground to avoid government anger, showing that India has enough sugar.

This was indicated by ISMA even before the season in October 2016. The situation would be worse had there been no import of 5 lakh tonnes of sugar from May to July 2017.

Estimating the final stock of 30-9-17 23 lakh MT and this is equivalent to about 31 days of sugar consumption, which can take care of needs in October 2017.

From November 1, 2017, India could not have sugar to eat, unless Indian factories will begin to crush the last week of October in Maharashtra, Karnataka and UP.

India has learned to have seen consumption of 182 lakh tonnes of sugar during the first nine months ending between 30 and 6-17 and there is a stock of 69 lakh tonnes of sugar as 01/07/17 reported by the media .

In return, estimated consumption for 3 months ending between 30-9-17 was observed at 66 lakh tonnes, due to the festive season that followed and stock settlement occurred due to the GST transition.

This gives even more gloomy situation for October 17 that was not considered and was based here.

In return, looking for an available stock of 23 lakh tons of sugar, 30-9-17, can meet consumption for the month of octobre17 single; This month risk of higher sugar consumption as Independence Day, the most important season for sugar consumption falls on October 19 this year.

UP: Sugar production of 88 lakh TM for the 2016-17 season, growing by more than 29%, compared to the 68 lakh MT observed last season.

Maharashtra and Karnataka sugar production fell by more than 42% this season compared with last season, with Maharashtra saw 42 lakh tonnes and 20.60 lakh tonnes in Karnataka. .

TN, AP, Telangana: sugar production this season is lower by about 25% on average, v / s season dernière.TN should show a production of 10.50 lakh tonnes, while AP and Tealnagan 6 lakh tonnes.

The free sugar mill price in Tamil Nadu now exceeds Rs.1.50 per kg. During UP ex mill, which otherwise had always used to reign up to Rs.1.50 / kg, as there is no significant stock of sugar in Tamil Nadu.

TN experiencing a great shortage of water, with Gob. After having allocated water for priority purposes such as alcohol, livestock, coconut farming and sugar cane.

Therefore, TN will not see the output of more than 2 lakh MT sugar second season 2016-17, which began in June 2017. Even in the current monsoon, since the date was met with a deficit of about 27% up That date, which also Aura strong impact on production next season.

Therefore U.P. Sugar mills, which hold good pieces of sugar, recorded the best results that have been made during the year 16-17, so that the record could be broken by a financially performing companies to record up to exercise 17-18 .

1993 Mumbai blasts: Abu Salem, 5 others convicted; 1 acquitted

1993 Mumbai blasts: Abu Salem, 5 others convicted; 1 acquitted
Standard

1993 Mumbai blasts: Abu Salem, 5 others convicted; 1 acquitted

MUMBAI: Twenty-four years after 12 blasts rocked the city killing 257 and left 713 seriously injured, a special court of the Terrorism and Disruption Act condemned six of the seven defendants, including Abu Salem and Mustafa Dossa, on Friday.

At the pier is a second batch of defendants, tried by special judge Govind Sanap A, after the main trial of 123 defendants ended in 2006 with the conviction of 100.

The court scheduled the next hearing June 19 (Monday) to decide the date of the quantum dispute.

Read this story in Maratí
Other convicts include Feroz Khan Taher Merchant, Riyaz Siddiqui, Karimulla Khan. The court issued the sentence after hearing the arguments of the defense and the prosecution. Of the six convicted by Tada’s court, only five face the gallows.

Riyaz Siddiqui enters the only life sentence because he is not guilty of criminal conspiracy.

Abdul Qayyum Shaikh, who was acquitted by the court, would have weapons and ammunition sent abroad that landed at Jerry Dighi. He also sold a Sanjay Dutt revolver in September 1992.

Special IWC representative Deepak Salvi said that the trial of the seven detainees between 2003 and 2010 was to be separated as they were shaken after a substantial part of the previous test was completed.

With no other defendant currently detained, Friday’s verdict was the last in the case for the time being. Thirty-three defendants flee, including key conspirators Dawood Ibrahim, his brother Anees Ibrahim, brother of Mustafa Mohammed Dossa and Tiger Memon.

Salem was extradited from Portugal in November 2005. His confession led to the arrest of Siddiqui and Shaikh. Mustafa was appointed in 1995 by a co-accused and arrested in 2003 after arriving in Delhi from Dubai.

The IWC presented the planned attacks to avenge the demolition of Babri Masjid December 6, 1992 and the following riots.

Taher (60) also experienced less predominance. A resident of Kambekar Street in central Mumbai, who grew up Dawud and his brothers, and is said to be with Don confidence.

It would have motivated the partners to organize Mumbai men to train to handle the weapons and ammunition in Pakistan.

Taher is also accused of raising funds to acquire weapons and ammunition. Abu Dhabi was extradited in 2010. The 12 coordinated attacks 13: 30-15: 40 on March 12, 1993, from 15 meetings planned through the UAE and India, property also destroyed value of Rs 27 million rupees.

Special IWC representative Deepak Salvi told the court in his first argument that “it was the first terrorist attack in the world in which large-scale RDX was used after World War II.”

Special judge SANAP resumed trial in 2011 and the procedure was concluded in March this year.

The trial was adjourned after the defendant and prosecutor moved the court at the apex challenging various legal aspects. Rizwan Merchant’s two-judge lawyer questioned the applicability of the bulky evidence of 686 witnesses to the previous test.

Kapil Sibal JUSTICE FOR NONE!

Standard

 

TTHE END OF ONE YEAR of the Modi dispensation, justice for all is still a distant dream. The measure of the gap between promise and delivery: the index of non-performance. ‘Justice for all’ was yet another Modi sloga: before the elections and ‘justice for none’ is the outcome after one year.

The Modi government has not even begun to address issues relatin. to the justice delivery system. The 3 crore pendency of cases, the allege, increase in levels of corruption within the judiciary, the inability of the! common man to get an effective judicial redressal system, delays of cour procedures, the inability to set up ‘commercial courts’, increasing cost? involved in the justice delivery system and other related issues are in the government’s radar.

The uppermost priority of this government is to exercise control over appointments in the higher judiciary. It has proposed changes to ensure that the executive holds the trump card in matters of appointment.

Article 124 (A) has been inserted in the Constitution by setting up a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) consisting of the Chief Justice of India, two senior judges of the Supreme Court next to him in hierarchy, the Union minister oflaw and justice and two eminent persons to be nominated by a high-powered committee.

Article 124 (B) provides for the NJAC making recom­mendations for the appointment and transfer of judges of the higher judiciary. These constitutional amendments suggest that neither the judiciary nor the executive will have primacy in the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary.

However, the National Judicial Appointments Com­mission Act (the Act of 2015), which too has been passed and notified, gives a veto power to any two members of the commission if they do not agree with the recommen­dations of the NJAC. This suggests that if the law minis­ter along with an eminent person objects to a particular nomination by the NJAC, it cannot go through. This veto power ofthe execu­tive will be a lethal weapon in its hands to block any appointment which the government of the hour perceives to be ‘inconvenient’. Also, the fact that the judiciary does not have primacy in matters of appointment strikes at the root of the independence of the judi­ciary. Instead of addressing the issues that affect millions of people in this country who are crying for justice in a system which is tardy, slothful and inefficient, the govern­ment has chosen to spar with the judiciary. Its intent and priorities are clear. It is least concerned with the travails of th eAamAadmi in accessing justice and more concerned with its own primacy in the appointment process. This is not just reflective of its priorities but exposes its desire to change the system to its advantage so that in the remaining period of its term, it can hope to fill the judicial corridors of power with incumbents who are perceived to be closer to this dispensation. This augurs ill for our judicial system.

Some might argue that the same veto can be exercised by the judiciary if the government of the day wishes to push particular individuals to man the higher judiciary. The logic of that argument is weak. It breaks down at the altar of our experience. We have instances from the past where those responsible for appointment to the higher judiciary have succumbed to executive pressure. The results stare us
in the face. Together the executive and the judiciary will make compromises to accommodate favourites at both ends and the justice delivery system will be the casualty.

While we can be critical of the intent of this government in pushing its agenda in the manner suggested above, we must be mindful of the tardy manner in which the col­legium system has worked. Far from passing the test of scrutiny with flying colours, its working has disappointed one and all.

Its fundamental flaw is that it has destroyed the inde­pendence of judges in the high courts, especially those who aspire to be elevated to the Supreme Court. They look up to the judges ofthe Supreme Court and seek their approbation. They lobby with judges as well as ministers in the hope that they be elevated. Sitting judges have in the past been suc­cessful in appointing those whose proximity with them is a matter of public knowledge. The collegium system has not done justice in discharging its responsibilities.

So what is the answer? If we are unhappy with the colle­gium system, we need to substitute it with a more effective mechanism. The NJAC provides a remedy, which, perhaps, is worse than the ailment. The fact is that the judiciary is loathe to give up its power to appoint members of the higher judiciary. This is why they have resisted the attempt to refer the matter to 11 distinguished judges to have a relook at the 1993 judgment in which the judiciary arro­gated to itself the power to appoint members of the higher judiciary. Ifthe judges uphold the NJAC, it will destroy the substratum of the 1993judgment. If they strike down the NJAC, it will be difficult to revive the collegium system.

The road ahead is difficult. Solutions will be hard to find but executive interference in the appointment process must be rejected.

I wonder why the Modi government took up this issue as its primary concern when millions in India are waiting for justice. Yet another instance in which Modi has not been able to usher in the Achche Din he promised, ffl