edealinfo wrote:All your rules and regulations, while on paper are BS in reality. See the latest ruling on the Essar case. The judge made his own rule of treating operational creditors the same as secured creditors. apologists for the judge will claim it is “one off” . sure (rolling my eyes. Time and again we have seen legal decisions in India not grounded in law, but what the judge personally deems as best in his assessment of what’s good and bad.
You must have learned in the 11th Standard that a secured creditor holds a higher standing than an unsecured creditor. probably even a law is not required because it is common sense. but now we will have a case that is pursed all the way to the Supreme Court wasting everyone’s time and money so it can rule when something on paper is supposed to mean what it says or not, and whether common sense applies.
And guess what, the judge who made the nonsensical decision will not be removed from his position so the process will repeat itself .
If you are a lawyer or other professional who spent years in college studying rules and regulations, you should know by now that it was all an utter waste and you would have had a much better chance with judges if you studied psychology (in dealing with them).
My wife is Indian. That makes me son-in-law of India. Maybe I'm a disagreeable son in law, but I'm part of the family nonetheless. So I chip in.
Suppose there is rule of law: why would you pay a bribe?
For the powerful to twist and turn to their own advantage it is obligatory not to have a functioning legal system.
How to achieve that?
1) Have government fixed fees so ridiculously low that the lawyer job has not much reward for honest people.
2) Have all documents with mistakes. These mistakes can be ignored with a lawyer agreeable to bureaucrats. Indeed agreeable lawyers may be able just to
phone the bureaucrat and get the job done.
However a layer who stands against them can be endless troubled. Will customers accept the delays and pay for his effort?
Nearly all documents I have seen so far had names spelled wrong, date of issue missing, critical facts written with pencil.
In big cities a lawyer may find enough customers who don't want to bow. But in towns?
3) Lawyers mustn't be kept accountable.
Suppose a lawyer had a risk of loosing his license if he acts against the interest of his client. Could he be bribed by the powerful who know to game the
system?
4) Not enough judges.
5) Allow the guilty party to endless delay court procedures.
6) Have laws or procedures that bureaucrats can't be hold accountable.
7) Have documents which have no legal strength but are usually accepted from agreeable people. Disagreeable people will soon learn their lesson.
"Show me your document which establishes your claim? Oh, that's not the right document."
8) Have a law that nearly all creditors have to agree to send a defaulting party into bankruptcy. This way the owner of the company just needs to bribe one or two bank managers and can default without risk.
Am I pessimistic?
Not at all. My German grandfather was born around 1900. My mother told me everybody in his office avoided him. He was the only one not to accept bribes.
In the early days of the East Indian Company corruption was rampant. One guy sent to be in charge of Calcutta presidency increased salaries strongly. Corruption soon became very less, but only in Calcutta presidency.
America in the 1920s had Al Capone.
Nothing surprising that there are conflicts in the legal system. At least there is some action at the moment. And it's important not to rush with topics such as operational vs. financial creditors.
Point 8) from the list will soon be gone. Just as was the case in Germany or the US in a few decades India will be through with the list.
Indeed if I see the bravery towards Pakistan I shall be surprised if corruption can stay any longer.
