LOAN MORATORIUM NO BENEFIT FOR SMALL TIME TRADERS WHO LOST ALL; PETITIONERS TELL SUPREME COURT
In the hearing of the loan moratorium case started, the Supreme Court decided to take voice from one by one. Relief waiving compound interest was the main issue in there and till now Rs 2 crore was not enough to solve the pain of the small time entrepreneurs who have lost all income sources during this pandemic. There were lot of suggestion that banks should stop overdraft facilities instead of going in for NPAs.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said: “Let the petitioners work out as per the mechanism, having regard to various factors and future contingencies" He said that the court need not intervene in everything problems. Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah said that it will first hear the petitioners.
Kapil Sibal the senior advocate who is appearing for CREDAI Mumbai, said that government and the RBI have taken the position and everything has to be worked according to a contract. “This means that whether there is a disaster or no disaster the provisions of the contract will prevail. If the bench does not protect them they will have no relief.”
Visalia Tiwari the advocate who appeared for one of the intervenors said that loan moratorium should be extended to December 31, 2020 and pleased that the common people should not be harassed by phone calls or through use of abusive language to make payments. There are 12.2 crore people who have lost jobs during the pandemic.Another intervenor said that the Cibil score of people who had taken moratorium is getting affected. That court must look into this issue “Please waive the interest too,” counsel said and another intervenor who is an contract carriage operator submitted that people who own small buses and carts were the first to be hit and will be the last to revive when economy gets back on track. Atmabirbhar Bharat scheme will not be applicable for them he said.
Harish Salve the senior advocate who appeared for Indian Banks’ Association suggested that banks should follow the normal rules of business. People are drawing money from defund accounts and the court must consider withdrawing order restraining banks from classifying accounts as NPAs he said.
On this issue Justice Shah observed that these were general submissions.Garg said that he can give a better affidavit on rejection criteria that have been faced by his clients.Shah again said that the bench cannot look into individual cases.Garg has submitted that the issue which he is pressing for before the bench was that there is no mechanism for implementing the scheme and redressing the grievances of borrowers.
Advocate Ravindra Srivastava, for the petitioners, submitted that the required action has not been taken as per the statutory law, which is the DMA of 2005. Also, there is no basis for pleading that there is financial constraints faced by the Centre.
Thirdly, he said, NDMA, which is the most powerful body, has been on record, saying that the measures taken by the Union of India is not adequate and a direction has been issued for taking appropriate measures, but nothing has been done till date.
And the Matter adjourned till Wednesday