The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Indian Society – An Analysis

The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 (the Act) envisaged protecting the interests of consumers by establishing consumer councils and other such authorities for settling consumer disputes. The perceived guiding principle behind this Act is that business organizations must adopt utmost ethical practices while conducting their business transactions. If and when the businesses gallivant and fail to fulfil their social and ethical obligations, the government will come to the assistance of the consumer.

Another oblique purpose of this Act, as stated by H.K.L Bhagat, the then Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, was to spur strong voluntary consumer movement at the grass root level. However, a law is a part of society, it takes issues from society. Hence, laws are not immune to the fault-lines prevalent in the society.

The Act has failed to substantially stimulate the welfare of consumers belonging to subaltern groups. Here subaltern group refers to consumers from lower socio-economic classes. The Act envisaged bringing in a behavioral change in the attitudes of the buyers and sellers, shifting the focus from caveat emptor to caveat venditor. This behavioral change can be brought on a macro level only when people are aware of the Act, its contents, and its consequences.

However, we have dismal awareness about the Act in India, especially in rural areas. As per a study sponsored by Department of Consumer Affairs the awareness of the Act is directly proportional to the level of education and income level. Subsequently, the Act has had a much less impact on the marginalized and subaltern groups of the society who lack education and are living in rural areas with minimal levels of income. Thus, to a large extent, socio-economic background of the consumer will determine the impact that this Act has on them.

Further, the Act aimed to provide speedy and effective justice to aggrieved consumers by establishing three-tier consumer redressal forums. It was deemed that shifting consumer dispute cases from the judiciary to specialized forums would ensure speedy redressal. However, most of the specialized consumer forums do not have the minimum facilities to function and the members appointed, especially non-judicial members, lack the basic legal expertise to deal with the legality of myriad issues.

According to a report submitted by a committee headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Arijit Pasayat, most of the non-judicial members are political appointees, serving political interests, who are incapable of even writing or dictating order.  Fearing delays and further complications, the consumers have been generally cautious of approaching these special forums.

Marketization and privatization have further lead to overtly strengthening the caste and class consciousness deepening the archaic social hierarchies and innate biases. The members of the redressal forums are also not immune to it. Most of the appointed members belong to the affluent class and castes of the society and hence they have certain predispositions toward other members of the society, especially those from the less privileged sections.

The graded and structural inequalities in social, political and economic edifices of society are also reflected in the working of the Act. Superficially, it seems that the Act provides equal opportunities for consumers to put forth their point of view before the forum.

However, under the Act, consumers can argue their case either through the medium of an advocate or they can represent themselves before the consumer forums. The latter arrangement is based on the assumption that the process and technicalities in the consumer forums are far too benign and easy as compared to the one followed in the civil courts and as such even a layman may understand the proceeding, or the lack thereof, and may represent himself saving the fees of advocacy.

However, this procedure, although established with a benign intent, does not help the subaltern consumers. This is due to the following two factors:

1) The poor, being illiterate in most cases, do not have proper guidance and understanding of the legal processes to present their own arguments before the redressal forums, and as such, they don’t get any assistance with this regard from the officials present therein.

2) Most the subaltern people don’t have the pecuniary resources to hire a lawyer to fight a case on their behalf.

Thus, the Act, and consequently consumerism, has failed to protect the interests of the subaltern consumers for whom every hard-earned penny matters.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Pratik Dixit

PRATIK PRAKASH DIXIT

Law Student pursuing BA LLB (Hons) at NLSIU, Bangalore. Interested in social and political issues.

Privacy versus National Interest – An overview

The journey of privacy has been a roller-coaster ride in INDIA. This topic has been debated a lot and has again come to highlight because of the controversial biometric project.

Most people value their ability to keep their private lives private, to protect information that they consider private. Some people do it to hide information about their financial status, or relationship status.The importance of such a right cannot be denied – secret voting enshrines the principle that how people vote is ultimately their own private decision – even if they choose to publicly back a particular candidate, nobody is allowed to scrutinize their DECISION.

However, in the case of the biometric project, it has caused great concern among civil liberties campaigners, who argue that such state intervention threatens the privacy of ordinary citizens and also many experts believe it is not a fair trade-off for protecting the national interest.

When it comes to defining National Interest, it is the interest of a nation as a whole held to be an independent entity separate from the interests of subordinate areas or groups and also of other nations or supranational groups. In this case, it seems to be a fair decision to trade off citizen’s privacy for national security.

What actually privacy is? Privacy is widely regarded as an important right in free and democratic societies. Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation” and “Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks”.

In India, the Right to privacy is one such right, which has come to its existence after widening up the dimensions of Article 21. The constitution in specific doesn’t grant any right to privacy as such. However, such a right has been culled by the Supreme Court from Art. 21 and several other provisions of the constitution read with the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Security versus privacy

The idea of government possessing citizen’s private information can be associated with AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES and can be a key feature of George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, in which privacy is all but eliminated.

Despite a general consensus on the value of privacy, many argue it has limits or rather it must have some restrictions. If the government is able to maintain the right balance between privacy and security enabling the authorities to keep tabs on personal information, without giving them carte blanche to snoop on citizens. For those in favour of compromising on privacy for the sake of national security, the key point is that seeking such information is no big deal given the rationale behind it.  In other words, privacy might be important, but is it so important that we should risk national and international security rather than compromise a little?

Even the supreme court of India quoted that “Right to privacy can never be an absolute entitlement.” In my own opinion, I believe that both privacy, as well as security, are important for different reasons. I believe that national security is important because we are and will be protected as a whole. On the other hand, our privacy is important as well because everyone wants to keep their personal business to their self’s, or at least have the opinion to keep it that way. I believe that people should be able to have their own personal privacy without worrying that it’ll be interrupted. I also believe that national security is important so that people will know they are and will be protected without worry. What is to be done is maintaining the right balance and a reasonable compromise between privacy and security. Well, as many say, “We should be willing to compromise our privacy in the interests of national and international security”

RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN INDIA

The right to privacy is seeded in several articles of Part III of the Constitution.

To pass the test of privacy, any law framed must be constitutionally valid. It must be need-based and it must be proportionated to the abridgement sought to the right to privacy consistent with actual need.

GOVERNMENT IS FACING A CHALLENGE

The government faces a formidable legal challenge in implementing its ambitious unique identification programme. Pleas have been made before the Supreme Court questioning the lack of a statutory basis for the collection of biometric details, and the government has to meet this point to the court’s satisfaction. Instead of arguing that privacy is not a fundamental right, it would do well to assure the court that it has the technology and systems to protect the data collected. And that it would do everything possible to prevent unauthorised disclosure of or access to such data.

WHAT WE NEED IS PRIVACY ACT

A Group of Experts appointed by the Planning Commission and headed by Justice (retd.) A.P. Shah came out with a comprehensive report in 2012 containing a framework for a Privacy Act. Such a law, it said, should recognise all dimensions of the right to privacy and address concerns about data safety, protection from unauthorised interception, surveillance, use of personal identifiers and bodily privacy. Underscoring a set of privacy principles, the committee said the underlying idea should be that the data controller should be accountable for the collection, processing and use to which data are put. In its zeal to aggregate data in electronic form and target subsidies better, the government cannot ignore its responsibility to protect citizens from the perils of the cyber era.

BUT To pass the test of privacy, any law framed must be constitutionally valid. It must be need-based and it must be proportionate to the abridgement sought to the right to privacy consistent with actual need.

Also, many people who totally protest that privacy should not be compromised at any cost should not forget what former president of Obama quoted, THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE 100% SECURITY AND 100% PRIVACY.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

IMG-20170904-WA0046

DEEKSHA KATHAYAT

Deeksha Kathayat is currently pursuing BLS LLB (third-year) from Dr. D. Y. Patil College of Law. An enthusiast debater and avid mooter, she’s into occasions where she can express her views on various issues. She believes that we realize the importance of our voice only when we are silenced. An aspiring bureaucrat, she describes herself as Unstoppable, Unconstrained, and Zealous.

Terrorism: An illusion of war?

Terrorism today is not just confined to a state’s borders but cheers to globalization, it has now expanded to unfathomable horizons.

According to The United States 2007 National Intelligence Estimate:

Globalization trends and recent technological advances will continue to enable even small numbers of alienated people to find and connect with one another, justify their beliefs, intensify their anger, and mobilize resources to attack—all without requiring a centralized terrorist organization, training camp, or leader (Anomic outsiders).”

The Internationalization of terrorism has raised several issues on enforcement and jurisdiction. Regardless, even today no globally accepted definition of the term exists, largely because of political differences (One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter).

But a fundamental question that needs to be answered is whether terrorism is a criminal offence or an act of war.

The use of the term WAR by the media and our learned politicians has created an illusion of a constant state of war surrounding our day to day affairs;, “war on drugs, war on poverty, war on organized crime”.[1]

State of war equips the government with the power to circumvent the rights and procedural protections ordinarily accorded to an accused.

It is argued (constructionist approach to defining terrorism) that terrorism is just a way of identifying someone with lesser rights that validates a concept which is purely a self-serving one i.e. justification for state power, withdrawal of Human Rights and expenditure on military hardware.

The reason why this view is popular is because two people having caused the same magnitude of damage to the society would be treated in completely different ways, the one charged with a criminal offence would have rights to a formal charge notifying exactly what he/she is being charged with, competent and relevant proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to cross-examine witnesses, to right to remain silent etc., while on the other hand in war its considered legal to kill the enemy to say the least.

A war takes place between two nation states. It does not connote situations of struggle between state and non-state actors such as criminal gangs, drug cartels, mafia etc. A mere involvement of the military does not make the struggle a war; it simply means that the military is being used in a police capacity. It moves us towards the second question, that shouldn’t the suspects of the war on drugs in Mexico or in other “wars” be entitled to the same rights under the criminal jurisdiction? Are they?

It is generally accepted that terrorists cannot be tried under the traditional criminal law as it is reactive and not proactive. Also, that charging it as a criminal offence and subsequent adherence to due process would take up a longer time before conviction.

In the absence of a definition as to who falls under the same and the excessive bargaining power of the state actors it’s not difficult to deduce whose interests would be furthered.

In the event of occurrence of a criminal activity in our locality, we take mitigating steps. However, the reaction of a rational individual to an act of terrorism is not the same. The constant bombardment of the idea of the existence of war has changed the national psyche.[2] We agree to give up more rights, freedom, and privacy in the name of National security policies that are implemented without any cost-benefit or rationality analysis.

Terrorism or War, and politics are very intricately related: it’s not surprising that Non-state terrorism is much smaller in comparison to state terrorism and that funding to terrorist organizations are often state funding. The illusion creates opportunities for politicians, and it sure will take a long time before the white flag is raised.

[1] Essig. Terrorism: Criminal Act of Act of War? Implications for National Security in the 21st Century,18.

[2]  Mike Masnick (9th Jan 2015) When We Call Criminal Acts ‘Terrorism’ We Destroy Our Rights And Sacrifice Our Principles. Retrieved form https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150108/18213829642/when-we-call-criminal-acts-terrorism-we-destroy-our-rights-sacrifice-our-principles.shtml.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

IMG_20170904_125447

TANVI SINGH

Tanvi Singh is a fourth-year Law student pursuing B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.) at Gujarat National Law University. Tanvi believes that deductions and deliberations must be made sincerely based on well-researched information. Her academic interests are in the field of International Trade Law, Law and Economics, Contracts and Arbitration.

 

The Unconstitutionality of Evil

The Bihar government, with a view to completely ban sale and consumption of alcohol in the state, passed the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The new law was put in force from 2nd October 2016 with intent “to enforce, implement and promote complete Prohibition of liquor and intoxicants in the territory of the State of Bihar.”

There was a lot of outrage when the Bihar government first came out with a notification in the month of April of the last year which sought to ban the sale of alcohol in the state. However, the Patna High Court struck down this notification by terming it as “draconian and unreasonable.” Thereafter, the state government came out with the present law. However, this new act attracted a lot of controversies, not due to its alcohol ban, but due to some stringent penalty sections enshrined in it. One such section is section 32(3) of the Act which presumes guilt against all the members of the family.

It goes as follows: “An offence is said to have been committed inside any house occupied by a family where any intoxicant or liquor is found or consumed, it shall be presumed that all the adults above the age of eighteen occupying or working at the place or in the premises or the members of the family above eighteen years of age occupying the house are having the knowledge of commission of such an offence, unless proved otherwise.”

This section presumes guilt against all the adult members of a family and shifts the burden on them to prove that they weren’t aware of the alleged fact. The act presumes that adult family members know or ought to know what the other members of a family are doing. This act does not limit itself just to a family but also extends to landlords who must make sure that their tenants don’t possess and consume alcohol within the building or land. In all such circumstances, as per section 30 of the act, a punishment of at least 10 years of imprisonment and a fine of at least one lakh rupees has been prescribed. This Act falls foul of many provisions of constitution and principles of natural justice.

Presumption of innocence means that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty by the court of law. This principle has been the cornerstone of the legal world, especially in criminal law. This principle puts the onus on the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused. But in section 32(3) it has been specifically stated that the accused must prove that he was not liable for the crime he committed. This goes against the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence as it makes every adult member of a family seem guilty, even though they may be in fact innocent.

Section 32(3) of the Bihar prohibition act reflects gross unreasonableness and arbitrariness on the part of the government. Putting the burden of proof on the family members is unreasonable as they don’t have enough resources and apparatus which the state has at its disposable. This provision may also lead to filling of false and malicious complaints due to family feuds. As per section 76 of the said act, all the offences are cognizable and non-bailable. Such harsh provisions in the law will lead to some powerful taking its advantage at the cost of poor and uneducated. For example, if a person X, out of his feud with Y, places alcohol bottles into Y’s house without Y’s and his family members knowledge, and then X informs police that Y has alcohol in his possession, the police will prima facie assume that Y and his family members concealed the alcohol in the house, and subsequently arrest them. The critical points here will be: whether Y and his family would be able to prove that they had no knowledge that alcohol was kept in their house. Will the judges believe on their oral testimonies? How will they be able to prove, being incarcerated and without any apparatus, that it was X who kept the bottles in their house? This Act will further impair a person’s dignity and reputation in the society.

The apex court in the case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi has expanded the realm of Article 21 to include human dignity, and all that is associated with it. It held that every act which impairs human dignity will constitute “deprivation pro tanto” of Article 21. Detaining people for no fault of theirs is an impairment to their right to live with dignity and would constitute an inroad into Article 21. And, the law which authorises such a procedure leading to degrading treatment should be forthrightly characterised as unconstitutional.

Thus section 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 doesn’t pass the muster against the bulwarks of Article 14 and Article 21 of the constitution and hence are illegal. We have already seen some perverse outcomes due to this law. This law has put forth the concept of “collective guilt” which could, if set as a precedent, be used to justify violence against groups and minority communities.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Pratik Dixit

PRATIK PRAKASH DIXIT

Law Student pursuing BA LLB (Hons) at NLSIU, Bangalore. Interested in social and political issues.

 

 

The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – An analysis

Goods and Services Tax

Tax is the financial charge imposed by the Government on income, commodity, or activity. As we know, there are two types of tax – Direct tax, and Indirect tax. A direct tax is one where the burden of the tax is directly on the payer e.g., income tax, wealth tax etc. Indirect tax is paid by the person other than the person who utilises the product or service e.g. Excise duty, Custom duty, Service tax, Sales tax, Value added tax and recently GST – Goods and Service Tax in India.

GST is mainly followed on the TCS guideline – tax collection at source.

Goods and Service Tax in India

Earlier, more than 150 countries already had GST except in India. A reform swayed in the Indian economy and in its tax laws since 30th June to 1st July 2017 when the Indian Government decided to introduce GST to the citizens of the country.

Goods and Service tax is an indirect tax levied on the goods and services bought by the consumers. It is a single detailed and multi-oriented tax that will undermine all the other small indirect taxes like the excise duty, custom duty, service tax and etc.

The thought of proposing GST Act in India was not something new. This thought was initially proposed in the year 2000 under the leadership of the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee but it never came to fruition. Nevertheless, it was again introduced in 2016 as a Bill by the Lower House of the Parliament i.e., the Lok Sabha and passed on to the Upper House i.e., Rajya Sabha for its assent. After the bill was passed by both the Houses, President Pranab Mukherjee signed the bill and gave assent to it. This time the new reform was brought under the leadership of current Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the leader of the BJP party who holds maximum seats in the Lok Sabha. The GST council, and the current finance minister, and the leader of the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley presides over the GST matters. Finally, after the Bill was passed by the Parliament it has now become a GST Act, 2017.

Coming to the Goods and Service Tax, it has been divided into three kinds –

  • CGST – Revenue collected by the Central Government.
  • SGST – Revenue collected by the State Government for intra-state sales.
  • IGST – Revenue collected by the Central Government for inter-state sales.

The new GST rates in India are 0%, 5%, 12%, 18% and the highest rate being 28%. As a matter of fact, there will be no GST on the sale and purchase of securities. It will continue to be governed by  Securities Transaction Tax (STT).

The Government of India finally enacted the new Act in the Sixty-eighth year of the Republic of India. The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 thus came into force. It is an Act to make a provision for levy and collection of tax on intra-state supply of goods or services or both by the Central Government and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

GST Bill

The Constitution amends both the Centre and the State to levy GST. This would subsume various indirect taxes of both Centre and States into one. After this new tax reformation, there would be a Centre level GST and State level GST.

Changes in GST Law

GST law is applicable to the whole country except Jammu and Kashmir. According to GST law, if the buyer fails to pay the service provider, then the input tax credit availed by the buyer would be disallowed. Then he has to pay the ITC with interest. The time period for this is 180 days. Even, if the payment is made after 180 days the ITC will be allowed to pay. This provision includes both to services and goods. The GST law included “Actionable claims” in the definition of “goods”. It explains in the Act that the actionable claims other than the betting, gambling and lottery would not be treated as a supply of goods nor of services. Thus, GST would be applicable on gambling, lottery and betting but not on other “actionable claims.”

Benefits of GST

GST has been introduced to simplify the other small indirect taxes and comply into one. In short, it is the funnelling down of multiple small tax structures into one. It would reduce the burden of heavy lengthy taxation process. This basically divides the taxation into the manufacturing process and the services. GST would be charged at the final destination of consumption and not before that. This would be a great step forward to the country’s development as it will reduce the economic complexities and somewhat prevent corruption.

GST would benefit the individuals and companies as the price of certain products would decrease resulting more consumption of them and hence more production by the companies. Although, petroleum products, alcohol, and electricity do not fall under GST till now. The biggest advantage is the reduction of the tax burden imposed on the administrative system of our country. It would benefit the GDP of the country and positively affect the Indian economy.

Flaws of GST

The introduction of GST in the Indian economy has not been spared from criticism by the citizens. As human beings we know we are resistant to change and any change initially is not well likely taken by anyone. So, the same scenario is with the goods and service tax. GST is a whole new reform in the tax structure of the country. People would take time to understand and accept this system.

Real estate prices would likely go higher by 8%. Services like telecom, restaurants would likely charge higher tax rate. The division of tax between the Centre and States could create conflicts. It would also lead to additional compliance cost for small and medium enterprises for registration and tax filing purposes. The consumers might have to pay extra for the increasing operational costs by a certain amount.

Certain factors:

  • The GST would be governed by five GST laws namely CGST law, UTGST law, IGST law, SGST law and GST Compensation law. The levy of GST can commence only after the GST law has been enacted.
  • GST would be charged at the destination point i.e. at the consumption level.
  • Import of goods would be charged under IGST i.e., inter-state supplies along with the custom duties.
  • Exports would be zero-rated.
  • Taxpayers with an annual turnover of Rs 20 lakhs (for special category states it is Rs 10 lakhs as mentioned in 279A of the Constitution) would be exempt from GST.
  • GST has a system of input tax credit which would allow the sellers to claim the tax already paid, so the final liability on the end consumer gets decreased.

The motive of GST is “One nation, one tax.”


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

07

SOMANKA GHOSH

Somanka is a fifth-year law student pursuing BA LLB in Calcutta University. She’s also pursuing a diploma course in Entrepreneurship and Business Laws. After interning in various law firms in Calcutta High Court and gaining experiences about the practicalities of legal practice, she’s now keen to test her theories. An enthusiast and diligent worker, she’s also a good researcher and writer.

 

Misuse of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016 or referred as ‘Code’ in this article) is made with certain objectives which can be understood from the preamble of the code. It is rightly said that preamble is the key to open the minds of people who made it (it was mentioned in respect to constitution though)[1]. If the Preamble of IBC, 2016 is read in parts to understand the aims and objective of the code then some of them may be considered as mentioned below: –

  1. [To strengthen the reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate person, partnership firms and individuals and amend the laws relating to it.
  2. Maximization of value of assets by following a time-bound procedure.
  3. To promote entrepreneurship.
  4. Availability of credit.
  5. Also, the interests of all stakeholders are taken into consideration and alterations have been done in priority of payment of dues.
  6. Establishment of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India.][2]

The Code is divided into five parts where part II describes insolvency resolution and liquidation procedure for a corporate person. According to this, the insolvency petition can be filed by three categories of people- Operational Creditor, Financial Creditor, and Corporate Debtor himself, and then the further procedure follows. This whole mechanism is laid so that the companies which are in debt, pay it and if not possible to pay because of financial difficulties suffered, then insolvency procedure is initiated so that creditors do not suffer.

The real situation: – Creditors are given the right to file the insolvency petition with the intent that they do not suffer because of the inability of Corporate Debtor to pay the debt. But there have been several cases where Creditors file insolvency petition merely to recover their dues. This was the same case with the winding up petition. Statutory notice under section 433(e) of Companies Act, 1956 were to be issued followed by winding up petition filed if the same(notice) is not replied or defaulted amount was not paid. Winding up petition u/s 433(e) can be related to insolvency petition as both are filed when default in payment occurs.

It was in the case of Pawan Khaitan V. Rahul Commerce Private Limited that the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in Para 5 opined that “..the process of winding up could not be used as a tool for debt collection, it is not a debt collecting court.”[3]

Now, when analyzed with respect to the usage of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 out of the major applications filed, most of them are by creditors, operational and financial both, but for small amounts (in compare to debt recovery amount of banks) and only a few of them are by banks and other financial institution.

This also happens because the minimum amount of default is one lakh rupees.

Obviously, the courts/ NCLT adjudicate the matters on the basis of merit and then may admit, but Judiciary and all quasi-judicial bodies are already overburdened with cases and in that, petitions like this make it more difficult to adjudicate other important matters which may be required to be considered on a priority basis.

Conclusion:- To stop the misuse of the right given there should be certain set criteria to file a petition except for the monetary value of 1 lakh rupees.[4] Also, when the central Government has right to set the minimum value by the issue of notification in the official gazette then the appropriate amount should be set so that people do not use the Code and the machinery therein to recover their debt.

[1] In Re Berubari v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 845

[2] Preamble, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016-An Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximisation of value of assets of such persons, to promote entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balance the interests of all the stakeholders including alteration in the order of priority of payment of Government dues and to establish an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

[3] [2015]190 CompCase236 (cal)

[4] Section 4, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016- (1) This Part shall apply to matters relating to the insolvency and liquidation of corporate debtors where the minimum amount of the default is one lakh rupees:
Provided that the Central Government may, by notification, specify the minimum amount of default of higher value which shall not be more than one crore.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Headshot

MANSI CHHAYA

Mansi is a law student from Unitedworld School of Law. She has always believed that life is about challenging oneself and living outside one’s comfort zone. Be it music or national level examinations, her focus has always been on trying to develop herself holistically. A consistent high performer and student of the year, she wishes to use her knowledge to ensure justice for people who deserve it.