The latest financial crisis to affect the world & the country en large has brough to focus some of the problems or areas that the country needs to focus on. One of these areas, is a much advertised word, Bankruptcy.
While India has imported the culture of borrowing & spending money that is not owned (through the purchase of loans and credit cards) and the latest Gen has moved forward to adpat to this new culture, the government has been slack to react to the protection that its consumers needs.
The move to decrease interest rates through the RBI, earlier this year, to promote vitilisation of the economy, advises the country that the government is aware of the fact that there are many who's pockets are not full.
The idea that invoking an archaic 'Insolvency Act of 1920' to seek relief from financial over comittment, making bad finiancial decisions is hardly comforting. What does it govern? The process of transferring properties to cover the debts that have been incurred by the debtor.
So how about the Presidencys Towns Insolvency Act 1909? The same thing, governing the transfer of assets to cover debts.
How are they different from eachother? The fact that one covers particular areas of the country, whilst the other covers everything else. Maybe there are differences in the procedures, or damages awared. Does this mean however that I can declare myself as being Bankrupt? Be absolved of my debts- NO. Let's also factor in that most of these rulings take a good 5 years or so, so yes, your debt is really YOUR debt.
Coming back to the point- overcomittment. What if I have just borrowed too much? What can I do? Does the law provide me relief? Am I protected from being harassed?
Most of these questions can be answered in the negative. Which is why, we need a legal overhaul.
WE are not a country with maharajas owing money to failed business men or corporations anymore. WE are a bustling economy, and consumers within the economy being subject to endless marketting of loans and cards. And we need protection, through laws.