Archive: July 31, 2026

Sitarist Purbayan Chatterjee Pays Homage To The Guru-Shishya Parampara At Cross-Generational Event UMANG By PAAMF

There is a distinct, electric alchemy that occurs when the old guard of Indian classical music opens the doors for its future, and Thursday night at Juhu’s packed Ajivasan Hall was a masterclass in that exact phenomenon. Sitar virtuoso Purbayan Chatterjee’s Purbayan Arts Artists and Music Foundation (PAAMF) staged a maximum-capacity edition of UMANG – Celebration of Guru–Shishya Parampara. The evening felt less like a rigid academic recital and more like a high-stakes, living monument to India’s sonic heritage, weaving a hypnotic tapestry of ghazal, sitar and tabla.

The room itself was a heavy-hitting gallery of musical royalty, generating the kind of backstage gravitas rarely seen under one roof. The audience was anchored by Hindustani vocal powerhouse Kaushiki Chakraborty alongside her son Rishit Desikan, Carnatic vocal icon Aruna Sairam, global violin virtuoso Ambi Subramaniam, and celebrated composer Shantanu Moitra. The rhythm elite turned out in full force as well, featuring contemporary groove-master Darshan Doshi, the formidable rhythm dynasty of Satyajit and Saylee Talwalkar, and legendary maestro Ustad Fazal Qureshi, whose very presence injected a profound historical weight into the air.

The sonic trajectory of the night was brilliantly curated, tracking the evolution of classical discipline from hungry, rising prodigies to seasoned masters. Following a ceremonial lamp lighting and a pair of sacred, atmospheric shlokas, the Mishra Brothers kicked off the live sets with a tightly synchronized sitar duet alongside Priyam Soni on tabla. The torch was then passed to the next wave of torchbearers, with Pratham Chatterjee delivering a commanding sitar solo flanked by young legacy-carrier Areen Talwalkar on tabla, followed by a fierce, technically precise sitar showcase from Megha Rawoot, backed by Shrutisheel Uddhav.

The energy shifted from promising to staggering in the night’s second half. Rhythm maestro Ojas Adhiya executed a breathtaking, hyper-complex tabla solo that pushed the boundaries of speed and precision, supported by Siddhesh Bicholkar’s steady harmonium drone. That percussive fire cleared the path for a gorgeous, late-night comedown as vocalist Gayatri Asokan spellbound the room with a mesmeric ghazal recital, flanked by an elite, multi-instrumental ensemble featuring Adhiya, Deepak Marathe on harmonium, Abshar Ahmed on guitar, and Shivang Mishra on sitar.

Just as the night reached its scheduled climax, Purbayan Chatterjee himself blindsided the crowd, taking the stage for an unannounced, improvisational surprise performance that sent a jolt of pure electricity through the venue. It was a definitive, punctuation-mark moment that bridged ancient lineage with raw, contemporary spontaneity. Reflecting on the triumph, Chatterjee beautifully summed up the night’s ethos, noting that the guru–shishya parampara is not a static relic of the past, but a living, breathing ecosystem proving that India’s classical roots are thriving with immense modern vitality.

MahaRERA 2.0 – Reforms Without Compromising Buyer Protection

– by Anil Pharande, Founder & Chairman – Pharande Spaces

MahaRERA was constituted with a view to making Maharashtra’s real estate market transparent, accountable and reliable. It must remain strongly committed to that goal and to protecting the interests of homebuyers. But nearly a decade later, it is becoming increasingly evident that MahaRERA needs a serious operational reset – one that protects homebuyers without turning legitimate project development into an open-ended compliance exercise.

While substantial progress has been made towards the objectives of the Act, serious modifications are now needed to accelerate that progress and make the system work better for all stakeholders. The first years of MahaRERA showed what was possible. The authority became functional in May 2017, with Gautam Chatterjee as its first chairman. Its original digital-first registration model helped Maharashtra take an early lead in RERA implementation.

The legal position is clear – a promoter cannot advertise or sell a real estate project without registration, and each phase of a phased development is treated as a separate real estate project for registration purposes. The crucial lesson from that period was not that oversight was unnecessary. Rather, it was that regulation could be fast, transparent and largely based on promoter disclosures, with clear consequences for incorrect or misleading declarations. The promoter was responsible for compliance, while the regulator ensured public visibility and enforcement.

This balance appears to have gradually broken down.

Shri Manoj Saunik is the current Chairman of MahaRERA. He took charge in September 2024 after the tenure of Shri Ajoy Mehta came to an end. Shri Mehta had taken the helm in February 2021, at a difficult time for the sector, when the aftermath of COVID-19 was still affecting construction, finances and dispute resolution.

The pressure on him and on the institution is tangible. MahaRERA’s 2023-24 annual report recorded 24,906 complaints, including 23,932 against registered projects.

Excessive Complexity Harms RE Industry

A strong regulator is necessary when dealing with such volumes. But volume alone does not justify a system in which every registration, correction, extension or amendment becomes slower, more document-heavy and reliant on intermediaries. A regulator should not become a parallel planning authority, a proxy for municipal bodies, or an additional procedural layer on top of an already crowded approval framework. We, Maharashtra’s developers, do not ask for less accountability. Rather, what we seek is clarity, proportionality and predictability in regulation. Buyers, too, benefit when viable projects are registered early, financed properly, constructed on time and delivered with fewer disputes.

Reinstating Declaration-Based Registration

The state government and MahaRERA need to revisit whether project registration has drifted too far from the declaration-based framework envisaged under RERA. Registration should focus on whether the required disclosures, approvals and professional certifications have been submitted in the prescribed form. Detailed verification and enforcement can then follow through risk-based audits, complaints, inspections and penalties for false disclosure.

This is especially relevant in relation to development potential and revisions to approved plans. In many large developments, plans evolve because of legitimate design changes, updated approvals, infrastructure conditions or implementation requirements. Where a project’s stated FSI position changes within the permissions allowed by the planning regime, the promoter should be able to update the registration through a defined, time-bound process rather than having to enter a correction cycle repeatedly.

MahaRERA should also issue a clear policy on phase-wise and vertical registration. The Act itself acknowledges that a phased project may be registered in stages. The ability to register a logically independent vertical or phase – with clear disclosure of common infrastructure, access, obligations and timelines – can lead to better funding discipline and greater buyer transparency in high-density urban markets such as Mumbai and Pune.

The question is not whether this should be permitted without safeguards. It should not. The question is whether those safeguards can be standardised rather than determined afresh in every application.

Cut Down Unnecessary Complexity

MahaRERA’s circulars and orders are useful when they clarify the law. Public records from the authority show that circulars have addressed matters ranging from approvals and complaint hearings to project grading, quality assurance, bank accounts and stakeholder training for the MahaCRITI software system.

But every new requirement should pass a simple test: Is it clearly supported by the Act or rules? Is it necessary to protect buyers? And can it be complied with through the portal without leaving room for subjective interpretation?

If the answer is no, the requirement should be reviewed or withdrawn. Compliance through circulars cannot quietly grow into a second set of rules. Frequent changes to forms, IT processes and documentation requirements create uncertainty for everyone involved – developers, homebuyers, lenders, architects, lawyers and project consultants.

The government should commission an independent audit of MahaRERA’s registration processes, technology contracts, staffing levels, response times and user experience. This audit should examine vendor performance, transparency, procurement compliance, data security and measurable delivery outcomes.

It should not be directed at any specific company unless a proper investigation establishes a specific concern. Claims about individual contractors, including claims of blacklisting elsewhere, cannot be treated as conclusive without official records and should not, by themselves, drive policy decisions.

Technology can reduce delay and discretion. A well-designed portal can flag missing documents, identify inconsistent disclosures, track approvals, provide standardised amendment pathways and publish application-stage timelines. The state may consider engaging specialised technology and process-management firms through transparent procurement, while regulatory decisions remain with MahaRERA.

In today’s world, such processes should be the norm, leaving little scope for discretion at junior levels. Excessive discretion can create inconsistent interpretations, avoidable subjectivity and, at times, coercive practices. The goal should be a lean and accountable institution – not an office where applicants must navigate multiple desks, departments and consultants simply to understand what is required of them.

Recognise Genuine Delays

Another important issue that must be addressed is delays beyond the promoter’s control. Planning authorities, utilities and other public agencies can cause administrative delays that stall projects even when construction is substantially complete.

Delays in MHADA processes can be especially damaging in redevelopment and social-housing projects, where occupation certificates and possession may depend on actions outside the developer’s control. MHADA has acknowledged issues relating to occupation certificates in certain redeveloped colonies and introduced a six-month amnesty arrangement for specified cases in 2024.

Regulatory responses to external supply-chain disruptions also need to be more realistic. Recent reports have highlighted how trade and energy disruptions in the Middle East have placed pressure on tiles, sanitaryware, marble, steel and cement. Gas constraints, for instance, can affect manufacturing and supply timelines.

These events should not automatically excuse delay, nor should they be used as a blanket defence. But MahaRERA should establish a transparent framework for assessing force majeure and government-related delays – one that distinguishes between avoidable project mismanagement and events genuinely beyond a project’s control.

If a public authority fails to fulfil an obligation linked to an OC or social-housing requirement, an automatic compensation order against the promoter may be financially unfair and, in the longer run, may harm buyers as well. The answer is not to deny buyers relief. It is to establish a process that correctly identifies responsibility, clearly records the delay and, where necessary, brings the responsible public agency into the process.

A Time-Bound Reform Plan

We therefore urge the Maharashtra government to constitute a 30-day reform committee comprising former MahaRERA leaders, consumer representatives, planners, legal experts, lenders, technology specialists and developer bodies.

Its mandate should be practical: simplify registration, set timelines for amendments, standardise phase-wise and vertical-registration rules, rationalise circulars, improve portal accountability, and establish a fair mechanism to address delays caused by government agencies or force majeure events.

MahaRERA remains one of Maharashtra’s most important institutions. It has processed more than 52,000 project registrations and over 25,000 complaint orders, demonstrating both its scale and public importance. If the objective of the Act is to regulate and support the industry while protecting homebuyers, accountability must extend beyond developers alone. Planning authorities and other public agencies are integral stakeholders in the real estate-development process. Bringing their actions, timelines and delays within a suitable RERA-led accountability framework would significantly improve time-bound project delivery in the interests of homebuyers.

It is time for RERA 2.0 – an approach that makes meaningful procedural changes, enables real estate to deliver better outcomes for customers, and allows the sector to function as a stronger economic engine for Maharashtra. Reforming the way MahaRERA functions is not an argument against regulation. It is an argument for faster, clearer and more credible regulation. After all, the housing market cannot adequately serve buyers if compliant projects become unviable before they are completed.

Anil Pharande is Chairman of Pharande Spaces, a leading real estate construction and development firm famous for its township projects in Greater Pune and beyond. Pharande Promoters & Builders, the flagship company of Pharande Spaces and an ISO 9001-2000 certified company. Established in 1994, the company has built a substantial footprint over three decades by transitioning from standalone bungalows to premium gated communities and massive integrated townships and high-grade commercial office and retail projects. Pharande Spaces is are widely recognized for its focus on systematic town planning, green living concepts, and high-quality construction .

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. References to organisations, authorities, data and regulatory matters are based on information available at the time of writing and are intended for discussion and commentary. The article does not constitute an allegation of wrongdoing or liability against any organisation or authority.

Market Rally Remains Selective as Half of BSE 500 Stocks Trail Gains in July

Mumbai, July 31: Indian equity markets witnessed a mixed trend in July, with benchmark indices delivering positive returns while more than half of the BSE 500 stocks failed to match the market performance, highlighting a shift towards selective investment.

The Sensex and Nifty gained around 2 per cent during the month, supported by strong performances in sectors such as information technology, consumer durables, real estate, and automobiles. However, a large number of mid- and large-cap stocks recorded limited gains or declined due to profit booking and sector-specific challenges.

Market analysts said the divergence between benchmark indices and individual stocks reflects a changing investment environment, where investors are increasingly focusing on companies with strong fundamentals, steady earnings growth, and long-term business potential.

The IT sector emerged as the biggest market driver in July, gaining significant investor interest amid optimism over artificial intelligence-led opportunities and improving technology spending. Consumer and auto stocks also supported market sentiment with positive demand expectations.

On the other hand, sectors such as capital goods and power witnessed pressure during the month due to valuation concerns and cautious investor sentiment.

Experts believe the underperformance of several BSE 500 stocks represents a phase of market restructuring rather than weakness. Such periods often allow investors to identify quality companies with sustainable growth prospects.

Analysts said India’s strong economic fundamentals, improving corporate earnings, and continued domestic investor participation remain key supports for the equity market outlook.

The July market trend indicates that investors are becoming more selective, rewarding companies with strong financial performance and clear growth strategies while reassessing stocks facing valuation or earnings challenges.

New Standards for Level IV Trauma Centers Released by ACS Committee on Trauma

CHICAGO —The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS COT) has released new standards for Level IV trauma centers. The new resource, Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient: Level IV Trauma Center Standards (2026), can help Level IV trauma centers assess capabilities, identify improvement opportunities, and strengthen trauma care delivery.

Level IV trauma centers frequently serve as the first point of access to trauma care for patients in rural and remote communities. These facilities provide essential early interventions, stabilize patients, and coordinate transfers to higher-level trauma centers when more advanced care is needed. When appropriate expertise and resources are available, Level IV centers may also provide definitive care for selected patients closer to home.

“Level IV trauma centers are an essential part of an effective trauma system, particularly in rural and remote communities. These standards provide a clear, nationally consistent framework while recognizing that states and centers differ in their resources, capabilities, and specific needs. Our goal is to help hospitals identify gaps, strengthen performance improvement, and build sustainable capacity to deliver the best possible care for injured patients,” said Avery Nathens, MD, PhD, FACS, Medical Director, ACS Trauma Quality Programs.

The manual contains 30 standards organized across seven areas: 

1. Institutional administrative commitment
2. Program scope and governance 
3. Staffing, facilities, and equipment
4. Patient care expectations and protocols 
5. Data surveillance and systems
6. Performance improvement and patient safety
7. Professional education and community outreach

Among the areas addressed are continuous emergency department physician coverage, emergency airway management, pediatric readiness, access to blood products and diagnostic services, transfer protocols, trauma registry operations, performance improvement, feedback from receiving trauma centers, and continuing education for clinicians and nurses.

The standards reflect ACS’ broader commitment to supporting clinicians and their teams caring for patients in rural communities. The ACS does not verify Level IV trauma centers. Rather, these standards are intended to complement state trauma system requirements and may serve as guidance for states and regions developing or updating their own Level IV designation criteria. State trauma systems retain authority for designation requirements and oversight in accordance with state law.

“Patients in rural communities may depend on a Level IV trauma center as their first, or even only, immediate source of trauma care. These hospitals must be prepared to rapidly evaluate injured patients, begin critical stabilization, and coordinate a safe transfer when higher-level care is needed. Trauma center levels describe differences in resource depth, not differences in the commitment to quality. The new standards give rural hospitals a practical roadmap for strengthening those capabilities while supporting appropriate care closer to home,” said Michael Person, MD, FACS, Rural Program Area Chair, ACS Committee on Trauma.

The standards also emphasize coordination across the trauma system. Level IV centers are expected to participate in regional or statewide trauma activities, establish predetermined referral relationships, communicate directly with receiving facilities during patient transfers, participate in prehospital performance improvement, and request feedback from higher-level centers about the outcomes of transferred patients.

The standards were developed through a collaborative, stakeholder-informed process led by ACS COT trauma and rural surgery experts, with input gathered during multiple feedback periods. 

The new Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient: Level IV Trauma Center Standards (2026) is available to download on the ACS website. 

The ACS Committee on Trauma was formed in 1922 to develop and implement programs that support injury prevention and ensure optimal patient outcomes across the continuum of care. These programs incorporate advocacy, education, trauma center and trauma system resources, best practice creation, outcome assessment, and continuous quality improvement.