New Delhi: A number of petitions had been filed before the Supreme Court seeking its direction for initiation of contempt of court proceedings and punishing Reserve Bank of India Governor Shaktikanta Das, and others for allegedly and willfully violating the apex court’s order/directions of September 3, 2020.
The top court had passed the order on the loan moratorium case in September last year and said those accounts that have not been declared non-performing assets (NPAs) as on August 31, 2020, cannot be declared as such until further notice.
The petitioners — Gorakh Pandurang Nawade, Suryakant Prabhakar Pawar, Pritam Sengupta, and Shanti Jewellers — had filed their respective pleas through lawyer, Vishal Tiwari and Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Abhigya Kushwah, before the Supreme Court in connection with loan moratorium case.
The petitioners claimed that the respondent, RBI, and others, allegedly had declared the account of the petitioners as NPA and thus flouted the stay order of the Apex Court of September 3, 2020, and thereby RBI committed contempt of court, and 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 and 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 and banks throughout the country and was passed in the favour of all borrowers’ accounts to grant relief from financial stress during COVID-19, the petitioners claimed.
The contemptuous act of the respondents has not only disobeyed the court’s order but has also caused severe irreparable damage and loss to the petitioners (firm), the petitioners claimed.
The contemptuous act of the respondents has shaken the confidence of the public and 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 and was in the public interest, the petitions stated.
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 and its survival has become critical, the petitioners claimed.