MIRA INFORM REPORT

Report Date :

22.01.2011

IDENTIFICATION DETAILS

Name :	SETHUSAMUDRAM CORPORATION LIMITED
Registered Office :	National Institute of Port Management, East Coast Road, Uthandi, Chennai-600119, Tamil Nadu.
Country :	India
Financials (as on) :	31.03.2010
Date of Incorporation :	06.12.2004
Com. Reg. No.:	11-054824
CIN No.: [Company Identification No.]	U75111TN2004GOI054824
Legal Form :	A Closely Held Public Limited Liability Company.
Line of Business :	Subject is engaged in raising finance for undertaking the implementation of the sethusamudram ship channel project.

RATING & COMMENTS

MIRA’s Rating :

C

RATING		STATUS	PROPOSED CREDIT LINE
<10	C	Absolute credit risk exists. Caution needed to be exercised	Credit not recommended

Maximum Credit Limit :	USD 30000000
Status :	Yet to Commence Business
Payment Behaviour :	Unknown
Litigation :	Exists
Comments :	As per available details of 2010, the company has not commenced its business operations. Payment terms are not known. The company can be considered for business dealings on a secured trade terms and conditions.

NOTES :

Any query related to this report can be made on e-mail : infodept@mirainform.com while quoting report number, name and date.

ECGC Country Risk Classification List – April 1, 2010

Country Name	Previous Rating (31.12.2009)	Current Rating (01.04.2010)
India	A1	A1

Risk Category	ECGC Classification
Insignificant	A1
Low	A2
Moderate	B1
High	B2
Very High	C1
Restricted	C2
Off-credit	D

LOCATIONS

Registered Office :	National Institute of Port Management, East Coast Road, Uthandi, Chennai-600119, Tamil Nadu, India
E-Mail :	sethusamudram@dataone.in
Website :
Corporate Office :	Ground & First Floor, Anchor Gate Building, Rajaji salai, Chennai - 600 001, Tamil Nadu, India.
Tel. No.:	91-44 – 25270651/ 25270652
Fax No.:	91-44- 25270645/ 25270646/ 25270650
E-Mail :	sethusamudram@dataone.in
Project Office at Rameswaram :	1st Floor, Tahsildar Office Building, Rameswaram 623526, Ramanathapuram District, India
Tel. No.:	91-(04573) -221466
Fax No.:	91-04573) - 221455,
Project Office at Nagapattinam :	D.No.542, 1st Floor, Public Office Road, Nagapattinam - 611 001, India
Tel. No.:	91-4365 - 248253,
Fax No.:	91-4365 - 249253

DIRECTORS

As On : 27.09.2010

Name :	Mr. Sabyasachi Hajara
Designation :	Director
Address :	5A, Land End Cooperative Housing Society Limited, 29, Dongersi Raod, Malabar Hill, Mumbai-400006, Maharashtra, India
Date of Birth/Age :	03.12.1952
Date of Appointment :	16.12.2005
DIN No :	00004485
Name :	Mr. K. Raghu Ramaiah
Designation :	Director
Address :	QRS No. MV/1, Madhuban, Paradipport-754142, Orissa, India.
Date of Birth/Age :	01.07.1950
Date of Appointment :	16.12.2005
DIN No :
Name :	Mr. Rakesh Srivatsava
Designation :	Director
Address :	c-2, 108, Modipakh, New Dehli-21, Delhi, India
Date of Birth/Age :	23.03.1959
Date of Appointment :	17.06.2007
DIN No :	00321459
Name :	Mr. Sellakkannu Velumani
Designation :	Director
Address :	No.37 and 38 A, Saligramam, Thiruvalluvar Street, Nehru Nagar, Chennai-600093, Tamil Nadu, India
Date of Birth/Age :	23.11.1952
Date of Appointment :	28.07.2006
DIN No :	00605200
Name :	Mr. Atam Ram Goyal
Designation :	Director
Address :	1250, Sector-12, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110022, Delhi, India
Date of Birth/Age :	15.03.1955
Date of Appointment :	01.10.2007
DIN No :	01956010
Name :	Mr. Guden Jagannadha Rao
Designation :	Chairman and Managing Director
Address :	Deputy Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Centenary Building, 9^th Floor, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600001, Tamil Nadu, India
Date of Birth/Age :	02.05.1953
Date of Appointment :	04.08.2008 and 06.08.2009 as CMD
DIN No :	01724002
Name :	Mr. Shyam Sunder Tripathi
Designation :	Director
Address :	T-V 29, Harbour Extension Quarters, Beach Road, Near Ramakrishna Ashram, Vishakapatnam-530008, Andhra Pradesh, India
Date of Birth/Age :	04.03.1957
Date of Appointment :	27.10.2007
DIN No :	01843411
Name :	Mr. Ajay Kallam
Designation :	Director
Address :	Quarter No.PJ-66, Panjakutta Officers Colony, Panjakutta, Hyderabad-500082, India
Date of Birth/Age :	11.03.1957
Date of Appointment :	30.12.2008
DIN No :	00278595
Name :	Mr. Capt Subash Kumar
Designation :	Director
Address :	HD@, Chennai Port Trust Officers Quarters, Near Napier Bridge, Chennai-600009, Tamil Nadu, India
Date of Birth/Age :	28.12.1960
Date of Appointment :	03.07.2009
DIN No :	02715172

KEY EXECUTIVES

Name :	Mr. Venkatesan Muralidharan
Designation :	Secretary
Date of Appointment :	22.11.2007
PAN No :	AANPM1964E

MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS / SHAREHOLDING PATTERN

As On : 27.09.2010

Names of Shareholders	No. of Shares
Tuticorin Port Trust, India	50000000
Ennore Port Limited, Inida	30000000
Vishakapatnam Port Trust, India	30000000
Chennai Port Trust, India	30000000
Dredging Corporation of India Limited, India	30000000
The Shipping corporation of India Limited, India	50000000
Paradip Port Trust, India	30000000
President of India, India	495000000
Total	745000000

As On : 27.09.2010

Equity Share Breakup	Percentage of Holding
Category
Government [Central and State]	66.44
Bodies corporate	18.79
Government Companies	14.77
Total	100.00

BUSINESS DETAILS

Line of Business :

Subject is engaged in raising finance for undertaking the implementation of the sethusamudram ship channel project.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Bankers :

Not divulged

Banking Relations :
Auditors :
Name :	Varadarajan and Company
Address :	No. 68, 1^st Main Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai-600035, Tamil Nadu, India

CAPITAL STRUCTURE

As On : 31.03.2010

Authorised Capital :

No. of Shares	Type	Value	Amount
1000000000	Equity Shares	Rs.10/- each	Rs.10000.000 millions

Issued, Subscribed & Paid-up Capital :

No. of Shares	Type	Value	Amount
745000000	Equity Shares	Rs.10/- each	Rs.7450.000 millions

FINANCIAL DATA

[all figures are in Rupees Millions]

ABRIDGED BALANCE SHEET

SOURCES OF FUNDS		31.03.2010	31.03.2009	31.03.2008
SHAREHOLDERS FUNDS
1] Share Capital		7450.000	7395.000	6520.000
2] Share Application Money		0.000	55.000	331.452
3] Reserves & Surplus		141.300	141.300	141.300
4] (Accumulated Losses)		0.000	0.000	0.000
NETWORTH		7591.300	7591.300	6992.752
LOAN FUNDS
1] Secured Loans		0.000	0.000	0.000
2] Unsecured Loans		0.000	0.000	0.000
TOTAL BORROWING		0.000	0.000	0.000
DEFERRED TAX LIABILITIES		0.000	0.000	0.000
Pre-operative Expenditure /(Surplus) (Pending Allocation)		338.599	336.329	211.107
TOTAL		7929.899	7927.629	7203.859
APPLICATION OF FUNDS
FIXED ASSETS [Net Block]		128.774	11.030	4.538
Capital work-in-progress		7750.907	7766.970	4053.263
INVESTMENT		0.000	0.000	0.000
DEFERREX TAX ASSETS		0.000	0.000	0.000
CURRENT ASSETS, LOANS & ADVANCES
	Inventories	0.000	0.000	0.000
	Sundry Debtors	4.589	0.000	0.000
	Cash & Bank Balances	695.540	1344.364	3431.871
	Other Current Assets	4.431	0.576	5.574
	Loans & Advances	28.559	128.480	542.621
Total Current Assets		733.119	1473.420	3980.066
Less : CURRENT LIABILITIES & PROVISIONS
	Sundry Creditors	60.019	75.365	15.405
	Other Current Liabilities	6.401	65.553	34.200
	Provisions	616.481	1182.873	784.403
Total Current Liabilities		682.901	1323.791	834.008
Net Current Assets		50.218	149.629	3146.058
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES		0.000	0.000	0.000
TOTAL		7929.899	7927.629	7203.861

PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT

	PARTICULARS		31.03.2010	31.03.2009	31.03.2008
	SALES
		Interest on Short term Deposits with Banks	37.454	253.193	266.189
		Lease Income	4.431	0.000	0.000
		Sales of Tender	0.000	0.223	0.326
		Misc. Income	0.000	0.001	0.002
		TOTAL (A)	41.885	253.417	266.517
Less	EXPENSES
		Establishment Charges	14.959	22.760	12.312
		Office Expenses	3.561	3.401	3.957
		Repair and Maintenance	0.775	0.775	1.056
		Traveling and Conveyance	2.361	5.240	4.808
		Other Expenses	2.975	10.411	7.235
		TOTAL (B)	24.631	42.587	29.368
Less	PROFIT BEFORE INTEREST, TAX, DEPRECIATION AND AMORTISATION (A-B) (C)		17.254	210.830	237.149
Less	FINANCIAL EXPENSES (D)		0.000	0.001	0.224
	PROFIT BEFORE TAX, DEPRECIATION AND AMORTISATION (C-D) (E)		17.254	210.829	236.925
Less/ Add	DEPRECIATION/ AMORTISATION (F)		11.828	1.322	1.259
	PROFIT BEFORE TAX (E-F) (G)		5.426	209.507	235.666
Less	TAX (H)		11.595	85.530	90.850
	PROFIT AFTER TAX (G-H) (I)		(6.169)	123.977	144.816

KEY RATIOS

PARTICULARS		31.03.2010	31.03.2009	31.03.2008
PAT / Total Income	(%)	(14.73)	48.92	54.34
Return on Total Assets (PBT/Total Assets}	(%)	0.63	14.11	5.91
Return on Investment (ROI) (PBT/Networth)		0.00	0.03	0.03
Debt Equity Ratio (Total Liability/Networth)		0.09	0.17	0.12
Current Ratio (Current Asset/Current Liability)		1.07	1.11	4.77

LOCAL AGENCY FURTHER INFORMATION

STATUS OF THE PROJECT:

The prestigious Sethusamudram Ship Channel project at a total cost of Rs.24274.000 millions was sanctioned by Government on India on 01.06.2005and inaugurated by the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, on 2nd July, 2005. Dredging is the major component of the project accounting for about two third of the project cost. The total length of the channel is 167 Kms. Whereas dredging is required for a length of 89 Km in two stretches, viz. Adam’s Bridge area and Palk Bay / Palk Strait area involving a total quantity of 82.500 million cum. The designed depth of the channel is 12m below chart datum.

STATUS OF SUPREME COURT CASES

Some organizations and individuals have filed cases and writ petitions in various High Courts against the implementation of SSCP. All these cases and writ petitions filed in various High Courts have been transferred to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. After hearing the arguments of the counsels of both sides in the transfer cases and writ petitions filed before the Supreme Court of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reserved its judgment on 30.07.08. However, prior to the conclusion of the arguments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court suggested an alternate alignment including a canal cutting through a portion between Dhanushkodi and lands end at Rameswaram island. The Government of India after giving serious consideration of the suggestion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had set up an Expert Committee headed by Shri R. K. Pachauri, Director General, The Energy Research Institute to quickly examine the possibility of the alternative alignment suggested by the Hon’ble Supreme Court keeping in view the Technical aspects, cost benefit analysis, social and cultural impact, environmental impact, law and order and any other related matters.

As per the recommendation of the above said committee, Government entrusted the EIA study for the alternative alignment to National Institute of Oceanography, Goa on 06.1.2010. The duration of the EIA study shall be 18 months. NIO has started the EIA study on 07.02.2010 and the work is in progress. On receipt of EIA study report from NIO, the expert committee will submit its recommendations on the alternative alignment to Government for further appropriate action. The recommencement of the work and completion will depend on the final verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

PROGRESS OF DREDGING WORK AT PALK BAY/ PALK STRAIT

Initially the dredging work for a portion of Palk Strait area, viz. the reach E3-E4 (Work-D), involving a quantity 13.550 million cum was awarded to M/s Dredging Corporation of India on nomination basis in June 2005. Since the two rounds of ICB tenders resulted in exorbitant rates quoted by the L1 tenderers and unacceptable conditions, the tenders were cancelled and the matter was referred to Govt. of India for a decision. Govt. of India vide Order dated 13/10/06 entrusted the entire dredging works in the proposed channel (at Palk Strait and Adam’s bridge area) to M/s Dredging Corporation of India, (a Government of India undertaking) on nomination basis.

As per the pre-dredging and interim survey conducted during September 2009 in Palk Strait / Palk Bay area it is ascertained that out of the total estimated quantity of 33.80 M.cum of dredging about 18.90 M.Cum dredging was completed. DCI has withdrawn all the dredgers on 27.07.2009.

PROGRESS OF DREDGING WORK AT ADAM’S BRIDGE:

The dredging works at Adam’s Bridge was commenced on 11.12.2006. Out of the total quantity of 48.05 M.Cum about 9.52 M.Cum of dredging was completed and due to non-availability of dumping spot within the vicinity, the dredged materials was allowed to dump within the channel alignment where the existing depth was 9 to 12 m. Out of this 9.52 M.Cum of material dredged and dumped, about 5 M.Cum is estimated to be re-handled.

FIXED ASSETS

• Buildings
• Plant & Machinery
• Office Equipment
• Computers & Accessories
• Launches
• Furniture & Fittings
• Vehicles

WEBSIDE DETAILS

PROFILE

Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project, which envisages dredging of a ship channel across the Palk straits between India and Srilanka, is finally taking shape.  The project will alllow ships sailing between the east and west costs of India to have a straight passage through India's territorial waters, instead of having to circumvent Sri Lanka.  This will lead to a saving of up to 424 nautical miles (780 Km) and up to 30 hours in sailing time.

Two channels will be created - one across north of Adam's Bridge (the chain of islets and shallows linking India with Sri Lanka)  South - east of Pamban Island and another through the shallows of Palk Bay, deepening the Palk straits.  The total length of these two channels would be 89 Kms.

HISTORY OF SETHUSAMUDRAM CHANNEL

1. Pre Independence Proposals

Between 1860 and 1922, as many as nine proposals were made for cutting a Ship Channel across the narrow strip of land to connect the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Bay with the object of providing a short-cut for ocean-going ships plying between the West Coast of India and the East Coast. These were:

1. 1860 Commander Taylor’s Proposal

2. 1861 Mr. Townshend’s Proposal

3. 1862 Parliamentary Committee’s Proposal

4. 1863 His Excellency Sir William dennison’s R.E. (Governor of Madras) Proposal

5. 1871 Mr. Stoddart’s Proposal

6. 1872 Mr. Robertson’s (Harbour Engineer for India) Proposal

7. 1884 Sir John Code’s Proposal for South India Ship Canal, Port & Coaling Station, Limited

8. 1903 S.I. Railway Engineer’s Proposal based on their Survey

9. 1922 Sir Robert Bristow’s (Harbour Engineer to the Government of Madras) Proposal

A brief survey of these various proposals extracted from Sir Bristow’s Report is given hereunder:  

1.1. Commander Taylor’s Proposal - 1860

The earliest proposal for cutting a link canal was made in 1860 by Commander Taylor of the Indian Marine. In his paper, he advocated cutting a canal across the Tonitorai Peninsula at a place about 12 miles west of the Pamban Pass. He stated “The southern end would start from ‘Port Lorne’, a natural harbour, a few miles down the coast from Mandapam, about seven miles in length and four-and-a-half miles in breadth, the greater part of which had a depth of 24 feet, and for some considerable extent up to 30 feet, the deepest parts being 36 feet. It was well sheltered by the Musal and Muli Islands and reefs. Its entrance had only a depth of less than 15 feet, but if this were depend, it would make the harbour a safe one for the anchorage of all vessels during the South-West Monsoon”.  

The Scheme involved the excavation of a deep cutting nearly three miles in length through the dry land and deepening to five fathoms for at least three miles on each side to connect it with the harbour on the south, and the deep water on the north. It would also involve cutting a channel across the reef barrier at the southern entrance to the harbour. It was at first stated to cost only about £ 90,000, but further inquiries brought the estimate up to £ 1,500,000. The Northern approach would be exposed to the North-East monsoon and would require special protective works. Owing to the great expense involved and the extra work to be done in comparison with a canal across the Island of Rameswaram (please see proposals 3 to 9), the Scheme was not seriously considered.  

1.2. Mr. Townshend’s Proposal - 1861

The next proposal was by Mr. Townshend. He proposed siting the canal through the Pamban Pass. His proposal was to deepen the existing tortuous Pamban Channel to enable the passage of large vessels. However, the objections to its adoption, with a curved channel, and subject to the strong currents through the Pamban Pass were so obvious that it put the Scheme outside the pale of practical consideration.

1.3. Parliamentary Committee’s Proposal - 1862

In 1862, a Parliamentary Committee of Her Majesty’s Government was appointed to report on the site for a canal across the Island of Rameswaram, and they recommended an alignment situated about two miles East of Pamban, crossing the Island in a straight Northerly direction.

1.4. His Excellency Sir William Dennison's Proposal (Governor of Madras)- 1863 

In 1863, His Excellency Sir William Dennison, R.E., Acting Governor of Madras, visited Pamban and selected a site which he considered the most advantageous. This was about a mile further East from that recommended by the Parliamentary Committee. Probably he visited the Island during the North-East monsoon, as he chose the best position for a sheltered Northern approach at a time when the Northern seas were rough and the Southern seas were calm. In the South-West monsoon, the Southern side will be rough and the Northern side calm. This alignment was unsuitable, as its Southern entrance would be very much exposed during the South-West monsoon.  

1.5. Mr. Stoddart's Proposal- 1871  

Subsequently in 1871, Mr. Stoddart recommended a site about one mile West of Dennison’s alignment and parallel to it. This was practically the same as the one suggested by the Parliamentary Committee. This alignment was protected by the reefs and small islands on the Southern side from the South-West monsoon; its Northern approach was, however, exposed to the North-East monsoon.  

1.6. Mr. Robertson's (Harbour Engineer to the Govt. of India) Proposal - 1872

In March, 1872, Sir Elphinstone, M.P., wrote to the Under Secretary of State for India, requesting that “Mr. Robertson, Harbour Engineer for India, should be directed to proceed to Pamban and examine the locality closely and minutely and give his opinion as to the best mode of proceeding in the matter, which is every month becoming of greater importance to the commerce and trade of the East”.  

Mr. Robertson accordingly visited Pamban and selected a new site about a mile from Pamban with its Southern entrance well within the protection of Kurisadi and Shingle Islands leaving the Northern entrance quite unprotected from the North-East Monsoon as he was of the opinion “that the point of paramount importance was the protection of the Southern entrance from the swell of the South-West monsoon”. He did not evidently make a close examination of the channel leading to the Southern entrance which would be narrow and would require an enormous amount of dredging to fit it for the passage of vessels.    

1.7. Sir John Code's Proposal - 1884  

After a lapse of 12 years in the year 1884, “The South India Ship Canal Port and Coaling Station, Limited,” U.K., considered the project for the construction of a canal across the Rameswaram Island and instructed Sir John Code, Consulting Engineer, to prepare a report and estimate. His report discussed the previous schemes and decided on the best alignment for the canal. The southern entrance was just near that recommended by Mr. Stoddard in 1871, but the placed his line of canal obliquely on land so that the northern entrance would “derive considerable shelter from the northerly stretch of the coast immediately to the eastward”. He states “there will be a further advantage than the improved sheltering of the entrances, viz., the bringing of the course of vessels passing through it more directly in the line of the winds both in the North-East and South-West Monsoons. This I regard as a material consideration seeing that vessels of the largest class which have their sides so high above the water will be much less liable to be deflected from their true course while passing through the canal, owing to the wind being almost invariably either ahead or astern, whichever monsoon might be blowing”.  

The Secretary of State for India granted the South India Ship Canal Port and Coaling Station, Limited, a perpetual concession, reserving the right to purchase the canal under certain conditions. Correspondence between the Home and the Indian Governments was carried on for some years. The Madras Government in their proceeding, dated the 14^th October 1890, however, advised the Government of India to reject the scheme on the ground that the shoals at the Palk Straits between Pt. Claimers and Pt. Pedro would prevent the projected canal being made use of by vessels of a deep-sea draft. Apparently, the Madras Government Adviser had not studied the Ceylon Government chart of the channel north of Ceylon, which showed ample waterway. The present Drawing No. 2, in which soundings taken from the Admiralty Chart Nos. 68-A and 2197 are plotted would also show that there is a minimum depth of 33 to 34 feet by the route via the Pedro Channel. In this drawing, this channel route is also marked for easy reference.  

Another point worth mentioning here is that in those days dredging and deepening a channel in the open sea conditions in the Palk Straits where they may get fiver or six feet waves in fair weather, could not be thought of, as dredgers could work only in two or three feet waves. Now Dredger design has advanced considerably and swell-compensating arrangements are provided in Trailer Suction Dredgers, so that it is possible to dredge in 7 ft. or 8 ft. waves without any difficulty. In this connection, mention may be made of the new estuarian dredger “Mohana” acquired for Calcutta Port to dredge in the estuary in the exposed open sea conditions.  

1.8. S.I Railway Engineers Proposal -1903 

In 1902, the South Indian Railway Company carried out a fresh survey by their Engineers and decided upon an alignment in Rameswaram about which they stated as follows :  

The final alignment of the canal has been determined after a careful survey was made of the seas on each side, and due consideration was given to its protection at both ends during the monsoons. A glance at the maps which accompany the project report will show that the minimum amount of dredging at the approaches will be required to enable a depth of 30 ft. to be dredged. The southern entrance is well under the protection of the Kallaru reef with the Shingle Islets and also of the Kurisadi, Pulli-Vausel and Pulli Islands and their surrounding reefs which form a natural breakwater during the South-West monsoon.  

The line of canal is oblique (and in the direction of the prevailing winds) and has the same advantage as advocated by Sir John Code in his alignment, which has already been referred to.

No other alignment can be made for a canal which would offer the same advantages having reference to the eligibility of the approaches and shelter which the present one affords.  

1.9. Sir Robert Bristo's (Harbour Engineer to the Govt. of India) Proposal - 1922

After another two decades, Sir Robert Bristow, Harbour Engineer to the Government of Madras, made a thorough study of all the previous proposals and carried out detailed investigations and put up his proposal for an alignment somewhat similar to the previous one adopted by the S.I. Railway across the Rameswaram Island, as being the best line for the canal crossing. He, however,. The question was, therefore, raised as to the advisability of cutting a canal through the Island of Rameswaram, in order to remove this disability. A good shifted the southern extremity of the land canal by about 500 yards west in order to get still better protection for the southern approach.  

Sir Robert Bristow in his report has stated that the reason for reopening the matter at this date (1922) was that One of the reasons which was acting adversely to the development of the ports of the South-East India was the fact that there was no deep-sea passage northward of Cape Comorin and that nearly all traffic had to pass round the Island of Ceylon deal of discussion was aroused by this proposal, especially among the people of Tuticorin, who, whilst in entire agreement with the idea of making a canal ‘qual canal’, were apprehensive that, as it would cross the main line of railway from Dhanushkodi to Madras, a port might grow up there, which would attract the trade from Tuticorin to Rameswaram.  

Again to quote from the Report of the Tuticorin Ad hoc Committee which considered the Canal Scheme drawn up by Sir Robert Bristow :  

There has been very little of divergence of opinion during the discussions as to the advantage of the canal in the abstract. Indeed, its obvious usefulness and the desirability in the constructing it, if only on the broad ground of reducing ocean distances, has made anything like serious discussion impossible. For example, it reduces the distance from off Cape Comorin (a common point for all traffic from the West) to Madras, Calcutta and Rangoon by 333, 240 and 109 miles, respectively and from Trincomalee to Cape Comorin by 125 miles.  

Further the actual saving in mileage and money is enhanced by the less tangible, but, perhaps, more important savings consequent upon avoiding the stormy journey round the Island of Ceylon particularly in monsoon weather. The increased wear on all parts of the ship, and the anxiety and risk which are thus eliminated in the case of all vessels render the construction of the canal a very desirable object on the general grounds.  

This proposal, however, was not pursued then, apparently because of dearth of finance.

2. Post Independence Proposal

The proposals considered after independence are as under :-  

2.1. Sethusamudram Project Committee -1956

The committee was headed by Sir A. Ramaswamy Mudaliyar and the committee contemplated a 26 feet draft land canal crossing the main land at Mandapam estimated to cost Rs.18.000 millions. Capt. H.R. Davis carried out further survey in the year 1959 and suggested certain modifications, regarding alternative alignment across the main land maintaining the same draft.

The Government of Madras under the guidance of State Port Officer explored the possibility of increasing the draft from 26 feet to 36 feet in the year 1963 at an estimated cost of Rs.21.000 millions.  

2.2. Nagendra Singh Committee Report - 1967

Government of India constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. Nagendra Singh, Secretary Ministry of Shipping and Transport in the year 1964. Shri C.V. Venkateshwaran, Retd. Development Advisor, (Ports) was appointed as the Chief Engineer to take up the investigation work. Shri R. Natarajan was appointed as the Project Officer to collect the statistics of shipping and to determine the economic viability of the project. The committee completed its report in 1967 and the draft contemplated was 30 feet at an estimated cost of Rs.374.600 miilions. The committee examined both the alignments suggested earlier and due to the presence of layers of sand stone in the Madapam alignment, suggested an alternative alignment in the Rameswaram Island Crossing called the DE alignment near Thankachimadam. The main components of the project involved were  

- Excavation and dredging of the canal

- Construction of a lock

- Construction of a bridge

- Construction of breakwaters

- Procurement of a dredger and

- Land acquisition and procurement of harbour crafts, construction of buildings, model studies etc.

2.3. Lakshminarayan Committee Report - 1981

The committee under the Chairmanship of Shri H.R. Lakshminarayan Development Advisor (Ports) was constituted in the year 1981. The committee collected the opinions and representations of the leading public, industrialists and Government officials of the State. All of them unanimously urged the Government to take up the scheme immediately. The prominent citizens of the Rameswaram Island represented that the canal would serve better if located to the east of Rameswaram town as far as possible, as it would otherwise affect the movement of the pilgrims of the temple town. After detailed investigations a new alignment was proposed across Dhanushkodi, 1km. west of Kodandaramasamy Temple across the narrow land strip known as the ‘K’ alignment. The committee also appointed a Navigational Expert Group to finalize the bottom width of the channel and the under keel clearance. The committee recommended construction of two channels called the south and north channels and also construction of a lock in the land portion connecting both the channels.

Pallavan Transport Consultance Services Report - 1996

During 1994, the State Government of Tamil Nadu felt that Sri. H.R. Laxminarayan Committee Report of 1983 has to be up dated and directed M/s. Pallavan Transport Consultancy Services Ltd.(PTCS), a Govt. Tamil Nadu undertaking, to reappraise and revalidate the 1983 report. Fresh particulars of cost and traffic were collected and incorporated in the report.  

PTCS Report Considered Following Project Components :  

Apart from the construction of the proposed canal, which constitutes the major component of the project, a number of infrastructural facilities as listed below are envisaged to be created under the project :  

· Construction of a "lock"

· Construction of rubble mound type breakwaters on either side of the land canal

· Navigational aids

· Lighted beacons/buoys

· Racons

· Satellite based differential global system

· Improvements to Pamban light house

· Flotilla

· Harbour tugs

· Pilot, mooring, survey-cum-lighting launches

· Despatch vessels

· Shore facilities

· Two service jetties

· Slipways

· Buoy yard

· Repair workshop

· Staff and administration buildings  

2.5. Tuticorin Port Trust as Nodal Agency

In February, 1997, the Ministry of Surface Transport made Tuticorin Port Trust as Nodal Agency for the Project, and subsequently the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur was appointed by Ministry of Surface Transport in July 1997 to prepare the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) of the Project The IEE study report indicated that the Project is environmentally safe with negligible effect on the eco system and the Marine National Park of the Gulf of Mannar. The report also recommended a particular alignment of the canal cutting the Pamban Island, east of Kothandaramasamy temple, which will cause least damage to the biota and the environment . As per instructions of the Ministry in February, 2002, NEERI was entrusted to conduct the following studies:-  

(i) Techno-economic viability, and

(ii) Environmental Impact Assessment.  

Tuticorin Port Trust later engaged M/s. L and T-Ramboll Consulting Engineers, Chennai in 2004 for preparation of a Detailed Project Report, which has clearly established the financial viability of the Project and has also prescribed a stringent Environmental Management Plan for preserving and conserving the rich bio-diversity in the project region.

CMT REPORT (Corruption, Money Laundering & Terrorism]

The Public Notice information has been collected from various sources including but not limited to: The Courts, India Prisons Service, Interpol, etc.

1] INFORMATION ON DESIGNATED PARTY

No exist designating subject or any of its beneficial owners, controlling shareholders or senior officers as terrorist or terrorist organization or whom notice had been received that all financial transactions involving their assets have been blocked or convicted, found guilty or against whom a judgement or order had been entered in a proceedings for violating money-laundering, anti-corruption or bribery or international economic or anti-terrorism sanction laws or whose assets were seized, blocked, frozen or ordered forfeited for violation of money laundering or international anti-terrorism laws.

2] Court Declaration :

No records exist to suggest that subject is or was the subject of any formal or informal allegations, prosecutions or other official proceeding for making any prohibited payments or other improper payments to government officials for engaging in prohibited transactions or with designated parties.

3] Asset Declaration :

No records exist to suggest that the property or assets of the subject are derived from criminal conduct or a prohibited transaction.

4] Record on Financial Crime :

Charges or conviction registered against subject: None

5] Records on Violation of Anti-Corruption Laws :

Charges or investigation registered against subject: None

6] Records on Int’l Anti-Money Laundering Laws/Standards :

Charges or investigation registered against subject: None

7] Criminal Records

No available information exist that suggest that subject or any of its principals have been formally charged or convicted by a competent governmental authority for any financial crime or under any formal investigation by a competent government authority for any violation of anti-corruption laws or international anti-money laundering laws or standard.

8] Affiliation with Government :

No record exists to suggest that any director or indirect owners, controlling shareholders, director, officer or employee of the company is a government official or a family member or close business associate of a Government official.

9] Compensation Package :

Our market survey revealed that the amount of compensation sought by the subject is fair and reasonable and comparable to compensation paid to others for similar services.

10] Press Report :

No press reports / filings exists on the subject.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

MIRA INFORM as part of its Due Diligence do provide comments on Corporate Governance to identify management and governance. These factors often have been predictive and in some cases have created vulnerabilities to credit deterioration.

Our Governance Assessment focuses principally on the interactions between a company’s management, its Board of Directors, Shareholders and other financial stakeholders.

CONTRAVENTION

Subject is not known to have contravened any existing local laws, regulations or policies that prohibit, restrict or otherwise affect the terms and conditions that could be included in the agreement with the subject.

FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATES

Currency	Unit	Indian Rupees
US Dollar	1	Rs.45.70
UK Pound	1	Rs.72.78
Euro	1	Rs.61.65

RATING EXPLANATIONS

RATING		STATUS	PROPOSED CREDIT LINE
>86	Aaa	Possesses an extremely sound financial base with the strongest capability for timely payment of interest and principal sums	Unlimited
71-85	Aa	Possesses adequate working capital. No caution needed for credit transaction. It has above average (strong) capability for payment of interest and principal sums	Large
56-70	A	Financial & operational base are regarded healthy. General unfavourable factors will not cause fatal effect. Satisfactory capability for payment of interest and principal sums	Fairly Large
41-55	Ba	Overall operation is considered normal. Capable to meet normal commitments.	Satisfactory
26-40	B	Capability to overcome financial difficulties seems comparatively below average.	Small
11-25	Ca	Adverse factors are apparent. Repayment of interest and principal sums in default or expected to be in default upon maturity	Limited with full security
<10	C	Absolute credit risk exists. Caution needed to be exercised	Credit not recommended
-	NB	New Business	-

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL : This information is provided to you at your request, you having employed MIPL for such purpose. You will use the information as aid only in determining the propriety of giving credit and generally as an aid to your business and for no other purpose. You will hold the information in strict confidence, and shall not reveal it or make it known to the subject persons, firms or corporations or to any other. MIPL does not warrant the correctness of the information as you hold it free of any liability whatsoever. You will be liable to and indemnify MIPL for any loss, damage or expense, occasioned by your breach or non observance of any one, or more of these conditions

This report is issued at your request without any risk and responsibility on the part of MIRA INFORM PRIVATE LIMITED (MIPL) or its officials.