bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,078
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
The article seems clear enough to me; Sugar stocks held by the mills were used as collateral for loans totalling Rs3,000crore (crore is 10,000,000, so this is 30 billion rupees, or about US$490million) from the State Bank of India.
The sugar mills owed money to cane growers whose crops they had been supplied but had not yet paid for, and the growers petitioned the Allahabad high court to force the mills to pay them what they were owed, even if they had to sell the sugar stocks to do this, and the court granted that petition.
Thank you for the details.
That doesn't change my position--the mills are bankrupt, seize them and hand them over to their creditors, the banks. From what you say there might be some criminal matters involved also.
The US has a legal system that strongly favours banks and large corporations. This is how the US government has decided to do things in the US. It is a cultural oddity; The laws were written by politicians who are in the pockets of banks and large corporations, so it isn't surprising. Nor is it based on any underlying or fundamental natural law.
India has its own government, and it's own laws. They are not the same as US law, and nor should we expect them to be.
If you assume that an Indian court applying Indian law will always (or even often) reach a similar judgement to that a US court applying US law would reach given the same facts, then you are going to be wrong quite a lot of the time. If you believe that the Indian legal system should be the same as the US system, then you are wrong right now.
In this case, the State Bank of India would very much like Indian law to be a mirror of US law; but it is not, and the Indian Supreme Court, as final arbiter of what Indian law says, have said as much.
The US way of doing things is, possibly, better for the economy - in that it prioritises what 'the economy', as represented by big corporations and banks, might want. But the Indian system recognises that not being paid, for banks, is a matter of economic interest, while for farmers it is a matter of life and death.
US farmers who go unpaid for crops they have delivered to processors may suffer hardships, but they are unlikely to die. The law has differences to reflect the differing circumstances. The US way is not the only way, nor the best way.