SAIL, Arcelormittal to ink pact for auto grade steel plant

HYDERABAD: Union Steel Minister Birender Singh on Tuesday said the SAIL and Arcelormittal will sign an MOU for forming a joint venture to set up a 1.5 million tonne per annum auto-grade steel plant, in the next few days.

"There is (will be) a JV between SAIL and Arcelor Mittal. That JV is almost finalised. And within few days that would be signed. It would be a JV (joint venture) of 1.5 million tonne capacity steel plant which would produce high-end steel which would be used in car manufacturing," Singh said on the sidelines of the inauguration of the 20th Asian Men's Club League Handball Championship-2017.

SAIL (Steel Authority of India Limited) and ArcelorMittal had entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in May 2015 to explore the possibility of setting up an autograde steel manufacturing facility under a joint venture in India.

"In the times to come, may be after one or two years you would see that India would be producing 27 per cent of total cars produced in the world and ultimately India would be a hub for car manufacturing. It (the JV) can be signed any time. It has almost now...it is only the matter of time," he said.

The proposed JV will construct a cold rolling mill and other downstream finishing facilities in India, touted as one of the fastest-growing automotive markets in the world with the production expected to double between 2014 and 2020, from 3.6 million units to 7.3 million units. NEW DELHI: The issue whether electronic records like uncertified receipts pertaining to business transactions with a bank can be relied upon as evidence in judicial proceedings, is being examined by the Supreme Court.

With the growing number of electronic evidence being relied upon in judicial proceedings, the apex court on Tuesday said it needed to be examined whether digital documents can be treated as primary evidence or secondary evidence which are admissible only after certification.

A bench of Justices A K Goel and U U Lalit also asked whether the court could brush aside electronic evidence saying it will not acknowledge as it is not certified, even if it is credible and reliable. It issued notice to Attorney General K K Venugopal and sought his assistance in the matter.

"One of the questions raised for consideration is whether the only mode of proof of electronic evidence is as per Section 65(A) read with Section 65(B) or whether the said provisions are additional permissible mode of proof of an electronic record," the bench had said earlier while framing a question.

Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act says that electronic records needs to be certified by a person occupying a responsible official position for being admissible as evidence in any court proceedings.

Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, who has been appointed as amicus curiae by the court, said she needed time to respond on the issue.

"We could have referred it to larger bench as there are various judgements in this regard. Despite apex court verdicts, various high courts and trial courts are proceedings ahead with seeking the certification as under 65B of Indian Evidence Act," the bench said.

It said referring it to larger bench will be like pushing the matter into cold storage as it will take ten years for the issue to be taken up for hearing.

"This issue can't wait to be adjudicated. Therefore this matter needs to be heard," the bench said.

It illustrated the issue by saying that if there is a saving bank account and a transaction is made through mobile banking, then the online transaction receipt is in the mobile phone. Can that electronic receipt be relied upon in court without any certification, the bnench asked.

"Do I need certification under 65(B) of Evidence Act or I can use it independently as evidence," the bench asked.

Similarly, if you take a loan from a bank and make online payment of the amount, the receipt of transaction is in the personal computer of an individual, it said.

"Can the receipt from a personal computer be relied upon in the court as evidence even after the bank refuses to certify it under section 65(B)," the bench asked.

It said these were questions the court needs to deliberate upon as recently another bench of the top court had passed a verdict in the Sonu versus Haryana case, upholding conviction for offences of kidnapping and murder.

In that case, the apex court had rejected his ground of appeal that the Call Detail Records produced by the police as evidence were electronic documents and not certified under the Evidence Act and hence cannot be relied upon.

The court said in 2014, a three-judge bench had given a verdict holding that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admissible as evidence unless the requirements of Section 65B are satisfied. NEW DELHI: An ombudsman at the head office of an insurance company, having branches across the country, would have the jurisdiction to decide on insurance-related matters, the Delhi High Court has held. Justice Vibhu Bhakru observed this while hearing a plea filed by Uttar Pradesh-resident Gudda, challenging the decision of insurance ombudsman in Delhi declining to hear his plea on the ground of jurisdiction. The high court, however, said, "the principal office of the insurer is located in Delhi and, even if it is accepted that the concerned branch office is located in Noida, the ombudsman at Delhi still has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint made".