| New law to tackle cash economy recommended |
|
Even as social activists mount pressure on the government to handle the menace of black money effectively, a panel appointed by the finance ministry has recommended enactment of new laws to deal with the cash economy and steps against generation of illicit funds through transaction in property, bullion and the equity market. In its 66-page report on measures to tackle black money in India and abroad, the committee called for strengthening laws relating to investment by foreign institutional investors, participatory notes and routing of funds from Mauritius. In the backdrop of various experts calling for discouraging the attractiveness of gold vis-a-vis financial instruments, the committee headed by former Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) chairman Laxman Das suggested floating of inflation-linked bonds. However, the committee doesn't seem to be convinced about social activists' demand for declaring the illegal wealth as national asset. "No purpose will be served by declaring wealth generated illegally as a national asset," it said. It, however, did not provide any estimate of the black money. "It can be said that though black money exists to asubstantial extent in our economy, its quantum cannot be determined exactly." The panel said the laws which could be amended to further strengthen its provision to tackle black money include the Coinage Act 2011; RBI Act, 1934, Foreign Exchange Management Act, Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code. The committee, however, said there can be no single or omnibus law to deal with the menace. The report further said there were multiple administrative agencies to deal with the problem of black money and hence there is no need to create any further agencies. Noting that persons demitting public office do not declare their assets, the CBDT panel said "such a requirement should be mandatory... Politically exposed persons, before they take their pension entitlements, could be subjected to scrutiny with respect to accretions in wealth assets". FINMIN PANELON BLACKMONEY |
| Creditors in a domineering role |
|
Magistrates' courts are now flooded with bounced cheque cases. Last week, the validity of the relevant provision in the Negotiable Instruments Act (Section 138) itself was challenged, and the Supreme Court issued notice to the central government. Another law that has spawned endemic litigation is the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Security Interest Act, 2002 (Sarfaesi). It was intended to reduce non-performing assets (NPAs) of banks and lending institutions. Its validity was also challenged in the Supreme Court some time ago, and the law was upheld with some modifications. However, it is the second most fought-over legislation, going by law reports. Lenders and borrowers are seen in a bitter cat-andmouse fray all along the ladder of court hierarchy. The law has been criticised for being too harsh and even Draculian. There have been allegations of it causing suicides of poor people, since any asset above `1 lakh can be taken over by the lender and auctioned. A woman may be thrown out of her matrimonial home if the husband wilfully stops paying instalments. The Act does not distinguish between such marginal people who are not "wilful defaulters" and intransigent companies that can engage clever lawyers to delay or stop repayment of loan. Lending institutions ignore corporate social responsibility and rush to auction property without resorting to alternative remedies. Even in auctions of secured assets, they are seen to manipulate price and adopt stratagems through private treaty. Some of the recent cases show both sides in a bad light. The Madras High Court described a case decided by it, Palpap Software International vs Indian Bank ,as "a classic example of misuse of the provisions of the Sarfaesi by the secured creditor, by purchasing the secured asset in the absence of bidders, after reducing and refixing the market value and upset price, notwithstanding the offer made by two bidders in the earlier auction quoting substantial amounts". While allowing the writ petition, the court remarked that "Sarfaesi Act gives wide powers to the bank to take action to recover the amount and for the purpose of such recovery, to take possession of the property and to sell the same, without reference to court. Therefore the bank is expected to conduct the procedure in a bona fide manner. The dealings of the bank should be fair and transparent. The attempt of the bank should be to auction the property for the maximum amount and to adjust it towards the dues and in case of any excess amount after meeting the liability, to refund the same to the borrower. By reducing the market value and the reserve price and by purchasing the property for the alleged distress value by the secured creditor themselves, the public sale has become a mockery". Some wilful defaulters are also adept in squeezing the rules. In one case, the mortgaged property was claimed to be agricultural land and, therefore, beyond the pale of the law. The nature of the land was changed to get exemption. The court did not buy the argument. In some cases, the debtor questioned the decision of the lender institutions that the assets were non-performing. Thus, the cases went back to the tribunal for deciding this preliminary issue. Deposit of half of the debt claimed by the creditor before filing an appeal is mandatory. But this issue is frequently raised by borrowers to delay payment. In one case, the appellate tribunal waived the condition. The bank moved the Bombay High Court and it quashed the order. Some other questions that are made intricate are: who is an "aggrieved person" entitled to move the debt recovery tribunal (borrower, guarantor or any other person who may be affected)? Whether an additional district magistrate is competent to hear the complaint in place of a district magistrate? Whether the term debt includes a "decree debt" and a debt recovery certificate? In one case ( MRajendran vs Corporation Bank ), the dispute was whether the notice of sale was affixed on a "conspicuous part" of the immovable party of the property. The Madras High Court ruled that the place was not noticeable by the public and, therefore, the notice was invalid. The purpose of notice is not only to inform the borrower of the impending action, but also notify the public so that it can participate in the auction and fetch abetter price for the borrower. It is reported that about half of the amounts of NPAs recovered in recent times is by invoking Sarfaesi. The lenders use the power indiscriminately to show results. The Act was aimed at recalcitrant companies, but the hammer falls on the smallest people with equal vehemence. While the big fish can look after themselves, small borrowers on bikes and housewives deserve some special protection, as seen from the working of the law for a decade now. The sword of the Sarfaesi Act falls on marginal people and adamant corporations alike OUT OF COURT MJ ANTONY |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
--
Company Secretary, Chennai
email csarengarajan@gmail.com
SHARING KNOWLEDGE SKY IS THE LIMIT
This mail and its attachments (if any) are confidential information intended for persons to whom the email is planned for delivery by the sender. If you have received this mail in error please notify the sender of the error by forwarding the email and its attachments (if any) and then deleting the mail received in error and the relevant email trail in this connection without making any copies or taking any prints.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment