9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1214 - SC - CustomsCovid-19 Regulatory Package notified by the RBI vide notification dated 27.03.2020 - case of petitioner is that the Regulatory Package will not in any manner salvage the MSMEs and help them recover from financial losses that have been caused due to the unforeseen circumstances - complete waiver of interest or interest on interest during the moratorium period - sector-wise relief packages sought to be offered by the Union of India and/or the RBI and/or the Lenders - seeking moratorium to be permitted for all accounts instead of being at the discretion of the Lenders - seeking extension of moratorium beyond 31.08.2020 - seeking extension of last date for invocation of the resolution mechanism, namely, 31.12.2020 provided under the 6.8.2020 circular. HELD THAT - In RK. GARG VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1981 (11) TMI 57 - SUPREME COURT , it has been observed and held that laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion etc. It is further observed that the legislature should be allowed some play in the joints, because it has to deal with complex problems which do not admit of solution through any doctrinaire or strait-jacket formula and this particularly true in case of legislation dealing with economic matters - This Court in the case of STATE OF MP VERSUS NANDLAL JAISWAL 1986 (10) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT has observed that the Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by particular circumstances. The court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the State Government merely because it feels that another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. The court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. In the case of PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE INVESTMENT CO. LTD. VERSUS RESERVE BANK OF INDIA 1992 (1) TMI 337 - SUPREME COURT , it is observed and held by this Court that the function of the Court is to see that lawful authority is not abused but not to appropriate to itself the task entrusted to that authority. It is further observed that a public body invested with statutory powers must take care not to exceed or abuse its power. It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith and it must act reasonably. Courts are not to interfere with economic policy which is the function of experts. It is not the function of the courts to sit in judgment over matters of economic policy and it must necessarily be left to the expert bodies. In such matters even experts can seriously and doubtlessly differ. Courts cannot be expected to decide them without even the aid of experts. Thus, it is not the function of the Court to amend and lay down some other directions. The function of the court is not to advise in matters relating to financial and economic policies for which bodies like RBI are fully competent. The court can only strike down some or entire directions issued by the RBI in case the court is satisfied that the directions were wholly unreasonable or in violative of any provisions of the Constitution or any statute. It would be hazardous and risky for the courts to tread an unknown path and should leave such task to the expert bodies. This Court has repeatedly said that matters of economic policy ought to be left to the government. The present petitions seeking reliefs, namely, (i) total waiver of interest during the moratorium period; (ii) to extend the period of moratorium; (iii) to extend the period for invocation of the resolution mechanism, namely 31.12.2020 provided under the 6.8.2020 circular; (iv) that there shall be sector-wise reliefs provided by the RBI; and (v) that the Central Government/RBI must provide for some further reliefs over and above the relief packages already offered stand dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Waiver of compound interest/interest on interest during the moratorium period. 2. Waiver of total interest during the moratorium period. 3. Extension of the moratorium period. 4. Sector-wise economic packages/reliefs. Comprehensive Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Waiver of Compound Interest/Interest on Interest During the Moratorium Period: The petitioners sought a complete waiver of compound interest/interest on interest during the moratorium period. The court noted that the Central Government had already decided not to charge interest on interest for loans up to Rs. 2 crores across specific categories such as MSME loans, education loans, housing loans, etc. However, the court found no justification to restrict this relief to loans up to Rs. 2 crores only and to the specified categories. It was observed that charging compound interest/interest on interest during the moratorium period is akin to penal interest, which is typically charged on willful defaults. Since the non-payment of installments during the moratorium period cannot be deemed willful, the court directed that no interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest shall be charged for the moratorium period. Any amount already recovered under these heads should be refunded or adjusted in the next installment of the loan account. 2. Waiver of Total Interest During the Moratorium Period: The petitioners argued for a complete waiver of interest during the moratorium period. The court held that such a waiver would have significant financial implications on the economy and the banking sector. Banks need to continue paying interest to depositors, and a waiver would disrupt this essential banking activity. The court emphasized that conscious policy decisions had been made to defer the payment of installments and provide other reliefs, and it would not interfere with these decisions. Thus, the request for a total waiver of interest was denied. 3. Extension of the Moratorium Period: The petitioners sought an extension of the moratorium period beyond 31.08.2020. The court noted that the RBI had already provided a resolution framework for COVID-19 related stress, allowing the extension of the moratorium by a maximum of two years based on the assessment of the borrower's income streams. The court held that the decision on the moratorium period is a policy matter and not within the judicial scope to extend. Therefore, the request for extending the moratorium period was denied. 4. Sector-wise Economic Packages/Reliefs: The petitioners argued for sector-specific relief packages. The court observed that the Kamath Committee had already addressed sector-specific issues and provided recommendations, which were accepted by the RBI. The court further noted that different sectors might have suffered differently, making it impractical to provide sector-specific reliefs through judicial intervention. The court held that such financial stress management measures require examination and consideration of several financial parameters and impacts, which are beyond judicial review. Hence, the request for sector-wise reliefs was denied. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petitions seeking: - Total waiver of interest during the moratorium period. - Extension of the moratorium period. - Extension of the period for invocation of the resolution mechanism. - Sector-wise reliefs provided by the RBI. - Additional reliefs over and above the already offered packages. However, the court directed that no interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest shall be charged during the moratorium period, and any amount already recovered under these heads should be refunded or adjusted. The interim relief granted earlier not to declare the accounts of respective borrowers as NPA was vacated.
|
