Covid-19: The Supreme Court can say no in the case of the moratorium

The Supreme Court on Monday indicates not to provide any help that petition. The action was taken for an interest-free loan moratorium for six months or until the Covid-19 situation subsides.

The bench consisting of Justice Bhushan and M R Shah made this observation while talking among themselves. This action was taken as the petitioner's lawyer Vishal Tiwari was not connected with the video conference.

The trial was postponed to June 11 because Tiwari was not in line to debate his case. The moratorium for considering the loss of business opportunities and unemployment due to the second wave of Covid-19.

Speaking among themselves, Judge Bhushan asked his colleague judge, said, "Have you ever seen a prayer, brother?"

Justice Shah said, "Yes. We cannot grant it. Representation can be allowed to be made to RBI."

Attorneys in Madras High Court: Covid-19: The Supreme Court can say no in the case of the moratorium

The petition said the center and its ministries concerned as well as the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) have failed to help in this situation. They failed for sectors and individuals whose sustenance and existence are under the clouds.

 

"There is no such help and monetary package that has been stated by sovereignty. They were not discussed the time that is emphasized. People are under extraordinary pressure to pay EMI's. They are always under the threat of accounts may be declared as an NPA," said the petition.

Furthermore, it argues that without salary, it turns out it becomes a hopeless situation for individuals. "RBI at 6-5-2021 has issued a circular for a resolution plan 2.0. In which cannot be said to be adequate help for all in the current situation to be arbitrary, unfair and eyewash," petition adds

The RBI circular stated, introducing a resolution plan for stressed micro, small and medium enterprises  (MSMEs). The circular described for the borrowers during the second wave of Covid-19. 

Property of every citizen or company

Showing the RBI circular on August 6, last year provided loan restructuring facilities during the first wave of Covid-19.  The petition prayed for the same help. And requested immediate action in the current situation.

Prayer is to direct that no bank or financial institution must act. They must act against the property of every citizen or company for a period of six months. They must not act against non-loan payments and no account stated as a non-performing asset (NPA) for six months.

Find the Best Banking Lawyers for Loan Matters in Chennai: Contact Rajendra Law Office instantly

NCLT stays appointments in Electrotherm

Ahmedabad: National Companies Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad has held the appointment of Sanjay Bhandari and Mukesh Bhandari as Director of All ELECTROTHERM India Ltd until March 17. The appointment of Sanjay Bhandari as an additional director of the Board has been postponed too, in accordance with the temporary order of the tribunal.


NCLT's order came after the petition was submitted by Siddharth Bhandari, son of Mukesh Bhandari, challenging the agenda of the council meeting which will be held on Thursday, which includes the removal of Uncle Sanjay.


"One of these agendas regarding the holders of the Nomination and Remuneration Committee for the appointment of Sanjay Bhandari as an additional director and director all the time for a period of three years," the message said.


Another agenda is to appoint Mukesh Bhandari as the Board Director all the time, he said.
The court questioned the credibility, services and feasibility of Sanjay Bhandari and stated that there was no documentary evidence or other material provided to prove the feasibility of Sanjay for the appointment on the ship.


"The Petitioner mainly accused that there was no Sanjay Bhandari credentials that had been brought in the record. We also found that there were no ingredients, in fact, there was only one letter that had been circulated by the chairman of the proposition had been given even in the email, no mentioned about credentials and feasibility / suitability in the appointment or qualification on the appointment or qualification.. "


NCLT Bench has also lived in Mukesh Bhandari, founder of the company and current non-executive director, as a director all the time and improves all cases to hear further on March 17.

DAILY LEGAL UPDATES IMPORTANT DECISIONS (12.02.2018)

DAILY LEGAL UPDATES IMPORTANT DECISIONS (12.02.2018)

• Auction sale - Subsequent higher offer - Not a valid ground for refusing confirmation of sale or offer already made. (2016(1) Apex Court Judgments 077 (S.C.) 
• Charge sheet filed for non cognizable offences - Case to proceed as a complaint case. (2018(1) Criminal Court Cases 070 (Allahabad) 
• Domestic violence - Committed before commencement of Act which continued even after passing of the Act - Wife is entitled for protection orders. (2014(1)Apex Court Judgments 023 (S.C.) 

 

• Lok adalat - Compromise - Signatures of counsel alone on compromise cannot bind the parties to lis. (2016(1) Civil Court Cases 066 (Kant.) 
• Maintenance - Qualified wife - Qualification is different from earning - Maintenance cannot be refused in case wife is not earning. (2018(1) Criminal Court Cases 182 (T&A) 
• Public servant - Previous sanction of Govt. not taken before taking cognizance against public servant - Impugned order quashed. (2018(1) Criminal Court Cases 116 (Rajasthan) 
• Thumb impression - Taken before Judge in the presence of counsel for the parties - Can be considered as standard thumb impression. (2018(1) Civil Court Cases 143 (P&H) 

Visit : http://www.lawyerchennai.com/

DAILY LEGAL UPDATES IMPORTANT DECISIONS (25.Jan.2018)

DAILY LEGAL UPDATES IMPORTANT DECISIONS
(25.01.2018)

Agreement to sell - 

Not containing recital of delivery of possession - Not compulsorily registrable. (2017(1) Civil Court Cases 130 (P&H)

Consumer -  

Written statement - To be filed within 30 days of receipt of copy of complaint - Extension of 15 days can be granted but not beyond that. (2016(1) Apex Court Judgments 022 (S.C.)

Contraband - 

Mentioning of FIR number, Provision of law, at the top of consent memo and dissent memo - Fortifies contention of accused that these documents were prepared at later stage either in the police station or after recovery was affected - It points to falsity of case of prosecution - Accused acquitted. (2017(4) Criminal Court Cases 727 (P&H)

Default bail 

- Presentation of challan during pendency of application seeking default bail, does not take away the right of default bail. (2014(1) Criminal Court Cases 353 (P&H)

Dishonour of cheque 

- Cheque issued towards payment of banned chit fund business running without any license -  Accused, is not liable as said liability or debt is not legally recoverable debt.  (2016(1) Criminal Court Cases 262 (P&H)

Dishonour of cheque - Loan -  Proof of required funds to advance money has to be proved. (2014(1) Apex Court Judgments 020 (S.C.)

Investigation 

- When  Magistrate comes to conclusion that on facts no cognizable offence is made out, he can opt not to send complaint to police authorities for registration of case. (2017(4) Criminal Court Cases 861 (P&H)

Judgment on admission 

- Categorical admissions - Litigation should not be permitted to linger on. (2016(1) Civil Court Cases 308 (Delhi)

Recall of summoning order 

- Magistrate has no power to review its own order. (2014(1) Apex Court Judgments 132 (S.C.) 

Rejection of plaint 

- Expression `barred by any law' - `Law' includes judicial decisions of the Apex Court. (2017(3) Apex Court Judgments 764 (S.C.) 

Relief 

- Only that relief can be granted which is claimed by plaintiff in the plaint. (2017(3) Apex Court Judgments 773 (S.C.)

Find the Best attorney in madras high court