High Court stated that no appellate body over State Legislature’, HC dismisses challenge to the election of Deputy Chairperson of Legislative CouncilJanuary 20, 2021
Supreme Court opines that the ground that allegations of fraud are not arbitrable as a wholly archaic view, deserves to be discardedJanuary 20, 2021
Several pleas had been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking its direction for initiation of Contempt of Court proceedings & punishing Reserve Bank of India Governor Shaktikanta Das, & others for allegedly &willfully violating the Supreme Court’s the order/directions of September 3, 2020.
The Supreme Court had passed the order on the loan moratorium case in Sept 2020 & said those accounts that have not been declared non-performing assets (NPAs) as of Aug 31, 2020, cannot be declared as such until further notice.
The petitioners — Gorakh Pandurang Nawade, Suryakant Prabhakar Pawar, Pritam Sengupta, & Shanti Jewellers — had filed their respective pleas through counsel, Vishal Tiwari & Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Abhigya Kushwah, before the Supreme Court in connection with the loan moratorium case.
The petitioners alleged that the respondent, RBI, & others, allegedly had declared the account of the petitioners as NPA & thus flouted the stay order of the Supreme Court of Sept 3, 2020, & thereby RBI committed contempt of court, & the Supreme Court should initiate the contempt of court proceedings against the RBI.
Tiwari told that the apex court’s order was flouted by many banks & borrowers suffered a lot.
The petitioners also sought a direction from the top court that the contemnors should compensate for the damage caused to the petitioners by their contemptuous act, the petition stated.
They also sought a direction from the Supreme Court that the respondents should grant a grace period of 90 days to the petitioner before declaring its account, NPA, the petition claimed.
The respondents are duty-bound to promulgate the orders of this apex court throughout the country but they deliberately did not do it. The September 3 order was operational on all lending institutions & banks throughout the country & was passed in the favour of all borrowers’ accounts to grant relief from financial stress during COVID-19, the petitioners alleged.
The contemptuous act of the respondents has not only disobeyed the court’s order but has also caused severe irreparable damage & loss to the petitioners (firm), the petitioners claimed.
The contemptuous act of the respondents has shaken the confidence of the public & has degraded the trust of the borrowers. In this pandemic, where all borrowers are passing through the worst scenario that this stay order was operational throughout the nation & was in the public interest, the petitions said.
The stay order was operating as the life-saving drug to the petitioner but the contemptuous act of the respondent has brought a major setback to the firm & its survival has become critical, the petitioners claimed.