Banking and Constitutional Law Judgments on COVID-19 Moratorium

Sr.
Case Title Judgment

No
BANKING LAW
1. KAMAL KUMAR KALIA v. Petition filed challenging the RBI's March 27 circular
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. on the three-month moratorium permitted for loan
(SC) repayments dismissed by Court with direction to
Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to ensure that it's loan
moratorium policy permitting exemption from paying
EMIs and other loans during the COVID-19 lockdown
period is implemented by the banks.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/10955/1
0955_2020_32_6_21909_Order_30-Apr-2020.pdf
2. Indiabulls Housing The Petitioners sought directions to restrain HDFC

Finance Limited v. HDFC Bank from recovering any amount during the
Bank Ltd & Anr. (Delhi moratorium imposed by RBI vide circular dated
HC) 27.03.2020. The Court granted time to RBI to seek
instructions whether its circular per se would be
applicable to Indiabulls (being a NBFC) and allowed
HDFC Bank to deduct the due amount from the FDR
with condition that it will not replenish the said amount
till the next date.
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=71
718&yr=2020
3. ASHWANI MEHRA v. The Court injuncted IOCL from encashing/invoking

INDIAN OIL the three bank guarantees extended by Petitioner in
CORPORATION accordance with the terms of the contract between
LIMITED & ORS (Delhi Punj Lloyd Limited (PLL) and IOCL relating to the
HC) Haldia Refinery Project till the expiry of one week from
the lifting of the lockdown imposed by the Central
Government, which is presently in force till 3rd May,
2020."
295&yr=2020
4. JR TOLL ROAD PRIVATE The Court restrained YES Bank from declaring the
LIMITED v. YES BANK account as NPA for non-payment of instalment due to
LIMITED (Delhi HC) COVID-19 following the Order passed in Anant Raj Ltd
v. YES Bank wherein petitioners were entitled to the
restoration of state of affairs with respect to the Loan
account as it existed on 1st March, 2020.
447&yr=2020
5. BANSAL INFRATECH The Court on a petition seeking an extension of time
SYNERGIES LIMITED v. for completion of Arbitral Proceedings and passing of
GAIL INDIA LIMITED Award extended the time for completion of Arbitral
(Delhi HC) Proceeding and passing of the Award for a further
period of six months looking into the Covid19
Pandemic.
504&yr=2020
6. SHAKUNTLA The Court held that Any classification of the
EDUCATIONAL& petitioner’s accounts as NPA would certainly amount
WELFARE SOCIETY v. to altering the position as existing on 01.03.2020 and,
PUNJAB & SIND BANK therefore, grave and irreparable loss will be caused to
(Delhi HC) the petitioner, in case, its accounts are declared as
NPA, only on account of its failure to pay the
instalments, which were admittedly payable on or
before 31.03.2020.
413&yr=2020
7. AJAY KUMAR v. IIFL The Court allowed Interim Reoccupation to Debtor of

HOME FINANCE LTD. property Securitized by Bank due to Nationwide
(Delhi HC) Lockdown and reversed the Order of DRT-III, Delhi
passed on an Application filed under section 17 of
SARFAESI Act while holding that such reoccupation
would be purely as in interim measure and the
possession shall be deemed to be of the Bank pursuant
to measures taken under section 14 of SARFAESI Act.
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/writereaddata/OrderSAN_
PDF/URGENT/wp(c)2958202009042020.pdf
8. ANANT RAJ LIMITED v. The Court held that the advisory issued by RBI on
YES BANK LIMITED Moratorium on loans and advances in the wake of
(Delhi HC) COVID-19 is applicable even to loans which were on
default as on 1st March, 2020 and restrained YES Bank
from classifying the loan, which was on default since
January 1 as NPA with effect from March, 1.
PDF/URGENT/WPCURGENT5202001042020.pdf
9. M/s HALLIBURTON The Court held that 'Lockdown Prima Facie in Nature
OFFSHORE SERVICES of Force Majeure' and passed interim order restraining
INC. v. VEDANTA invocation of Bank Guarantee while holding that where
LIMITED & ANR (Delhi “special equities” exists, the court is empowered in
HC) facts and circumstances, to injunct invocation, or
encashment, of Bank Guarantee.
386&yr=2020
471&yr=2020
10. INDRAJIT POWER The Court relying on a series of case laws stating that
PRIVATE LIMITED v. merely because the invocation would cause financial
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. distress, it could not be a ground of stay and thus did
(Delhi HC) not restrain the UOI to invoke Bank Guarantee issued
by Petitioner
366&yr=2020
11. EASTMAN AUTO & The Court observed that Factoring Facility offered by
POWER LIMITED v. banks was at par with loans and advances and would
RESERVE BANK OF thus be covered by the RBI Circulars for benefit of
INDIA & ORS. (Delhi borrowers during COVID-19, the stay was granted and
HC) bank was restrained from taking any coercive action
for default in payment for the bank's Factoring Facility.
419&yr=2020
12. Purna Sai Hospitals v. Stay granted to the hospital from auction with
Syndicate Bank (Andhra direction that hospital be used to treat COVID-19
Pradesh HC) patients on Writ Petition filed seeking stay of proposed
auction initiated by the respondent bank under
SARFAESI Act
2020 SCC OnLine AP 42
13. Standard Retail Pvt. Ltd. The Court refused 'Force Majeure' Exemption to Steel
v. M/s. G. S. Global Importers who had sought to restrain the encashment
Corp & Ors. (Bombay of their Letters of Credit holding that Steel has been
HC) declared as 'Essential Service' during lockdown
14. INDIABULLS The Court on a petition challenging the demands of

COMMERCIAL CREDIT loan repayment/installment made by SIDBI restrained
LTD. v. SIDBI & ANR. SIDBI till Petitioner seeks clarification from RBI
(Delhi HC) whether circular dated 27.03.2020 on moratorium on
loan repayments extends to NBFCs.
CONSTITUTIONAL/WRIT LAW
15. VALENCIO ROSENBERG Directed the respondent to take measures to arrange

RODRIGUES v. UNION release of seafarers who are held up in different ships
OF INDIA & ANR. (SC) at various places and to take measures to bring back
all Goan seafarers to India due to the threat to their
life and health because of Covid-19.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/11013/11013_2020_31_18_
21870_Order_27-Apr-2020.pdf
16. Shashank Deo Sudhi … The order dated 08.04.2020 which made testing in
v. Union of India and private Labs of COVID-19 free for all starta of society
Ors. (SC) was modified to make testing in private Labs of
COVID-19 free only for economically weaker sections
of the society who are unable to afford the payment of
testing fee as fixed by ICMR for COVID-19.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/10816/10816_2020_33_1_2
17. REEPAK KANSAL Directed Union of India to consider whether it is
VERSUS UNION OF feasible for it to implement the One Nation One Ration
INDIA (SC) Card Scheme, framed by the Central Government
which was going to start from June, 2020 at this stage
or not and take appropriate decision in this regard
keeping in view the present circumstances.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/10951/10951_2020_31_14_
18. MUSTAFA MH VERSUS Petition seeking safe return of pilgrims stranded in

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Iran disposed-off on assurance by UOI to assist and
(SC) repatriate Indian pilgrims in Iran
19. JERRYL BANAIT v. Detailed Directions/Guidelines issued to Union of India
UNION OF INDIA & ANR to safeguard and protect the medical professionals
(SC) and make necessary suggestions in
the`Rational Use of Personal Protective Equipment’ g
uidelines so that
PPEs are provided to all health officials, as stated abo
ve, who are working in Non-Covid treatment areas.
20. IN RE: COGNIZANCE Order dated 23.03.2020

FOR EXTENSION OF The Court ordered that a period of limitation in filing
LIMITATION (SC) their petitions/applications/suits/ appeals/all other
proceedings irrespective of the limitation prescribed
under the general law or Special Laws whether
condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th
March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this
Court in present proceedings.
Order dated 06.05.2020

All periods of limitation prescribed under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881
extended with effect from 15.03.2020
0787_2020_1_12_2 1570_Order_23-Mar-2020.pdf
0787_2020_31_6_21961_Order_06-May-2020.pdf
21. IN RE: CONTAGION OF Order dated 23.03.2020 - Constitution of High Level

COVID 19 VIRUS IN Committee to decide release of prisoners.
PRISONS (SC)
Order dated 07.04.2020- Directions issued to
Union/State Governments to provide safe transit to
the prisoners who have been released so that they
may reach their homes.
Order dated 13.04.2020- Additional directions and

clarifications of its previous Orders
0_Order_23-Mar-2020.pdf
22. ALJO J. JOSEPH Vs Petitioner, a lawyer through prayer sought exemption

UOI (SC) Writ to lawyers from paying rentals. The SC observed that
Petition (Civil) Diary it is not inclined to pass any relief as rentals are
No. 11055/2020 livelihood for many landlords and the Petitioner should
approach BCI or Government. The Writ Petition was
dismissed as withdrawn
23. JAGDEEP S. The Court disposes of plea to allow movement of

CHHOKAR & ANR. v. migrants by observing that all necessary steps are
UNION OF INDIA being taken by the Centre and the states in this
(SC) regard. With regard to question of 15% fare allegedly
being charged, the court observed thus:
“Insofar as charging of 15% of Railway tickets' amount
from workers, it is not for this Court to issue any order
under Article 32 regarding the same, it is the
concerned State/Railways to take necessary steps
under the relevant guidelines.”
0947_2020_32_8_21916_Order_05-May-2020.pdf
24. Abhinav Ramakrishna The Court junked plea seeking uniform welfare scheme
v. Union of India & for Lawyers amid COVID-19 Lockdown by orally
Ors (SC) observing that "Such a plea cannot be filed under
Article 32"
1049_2020_32_11_21993_Order_08-May-2020.pdf
25. Gajendra v. Union of India The Court on a plea of charging of interest rate on the
& Ors. (SC) loan amount during the moratorium period asked
solicitor General to obtain instructions from Centre,
RBI on the issue of levying of interest on the loan
amount during the moratorium period
1127_2020_32_20_21993_Order_08-May-2020.pdf
26. Guruswami Natraj v. The Court refused to interfere in a Plea seeking

Union of India & Ors. Prohibition of Liquor Sale through Direct Contact in
(SC) Lockdown and asks States to consider Home Delivery
of Liquor.
1141_2020_32_21_21993_Order_08-May-2020.pdf
27. UOI v. The Court stayed Orissa High Court's order which
Narayana Chandra mandated stranded migrants to test negative for
Jena & Anr. (SC) COVID-19 before returning to State and observed that
the Government of India Guidelines dated 29.04.2020
which provides ample protection were neither brought
into the notice nor were under challenge before Orissa
High Court
1156_2020_32_26_21993_Order_08-May-2020.pdf
28. W.P. No.6435/2020 The Court asked the State Government to make
(Karnataka HC) migrants aware of State Policy so they do not
"undertake the adventure of walking" to their
hometowns and ensure that migrant workers do not
breach social distancing rules while being transported.
https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/noticeBoard/WP-
6435-2020-08052020.pdf
29. Mahendra Singh v. The Court on a plea of Habeas Corpus observed:

Commissioner of “Quarantine facilities cannot be used by the police to
Police & Ors (Bombay keep away people, who according to them, are of
HC) nuisance value. Quarantine facilities cannot be used as
preventive detention or as a punitive measure."
https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/writereaddata/webor
ders/PDF/O08052020169999.pdf
30. ANIL K AGGARWAL, While dismissing a petition to shut down public sector
ADVOCATE & ANR v. undertakings during the lockdown, the Court stated
that courts cannot sit in appeal over Executive Policy,
UNION OF INDIA & least of all during the COVID-19 pandemic, unless such
ORS. (Delhi HC) policy is tainted in law.
Go to Portal - http://164.100.69.66/jsearch/ Add Case
detail- W.P. (C) No. 3027/2020
31. RAKESH MALHOTRA The Court on a petition gave slew of directions to the
v. GOVT. OF State Government.
NATIONAL CAPITAL “Delhi Government is directed to ensure that the
TERRITORY OF DELHI samples that are furnished to the accredited labs,
& ORS. (Delhi HC) details whereof have been furnished in the documents
forwarded by learned ASC by Whatsapp shall be
processed and reports forwarded within a period of
24/48 hours. It is further directed that the Delhi
Government shall continue updating its website on a
regular basis to reflect the correct number of tests that
are being conducted for COVID-19 in Delhi, mention
the number of cases that are positive or negative and
state the number of results that are pending after the
tests are conducted.”
Go to Portal - http://164.100.69.66/jsearch/ Add Case
detail- W.P. (C) No. 3031/2020
32. B Ramkumar Adityan The Court while refusing to stay the State
v. Chief Secretary, Government's decision to re-open TASMAC/liquor
Tamil Nadu and ors vending outlets from May 7 on PIL seeking to prohibit
(Madras HC) alcohol sale amid the COVID-19 pandemic issued
certain guidelines for the sale of alcohol in the State.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/lockdown_orders/pdf_log
o/15888373814977.pdf
33. All India Loco Running Operation of the impugned letter No.2016/ML/467/1
Staff Association v. dated 20.03.2020, issued by the Ministry of Railways,
Union of India & Ors. Railway Board which has the potential of exposing the
(Delhi HC) members of the petitioner association to the risk of
coronavirus spread stayed.
The Court clarified that the Railways will not subject
the Loco Running Staff to either the breath analyzer
test or the bio-metric verification, during signing
on/off duties.
PDF/sid/2020/URGENT4_27032020.pdf
34. ALAKH ALOK Advisories issued to Media Houses, State & Central
SRIVASTAVA VERSUS Govts to tackle the situation and have a humane
UNION OF INDIA (SC) approach while dealing with migrant labourers.
581_Order_31-Mar-2020.pdf
35. In Re. Corona Virus- RIGHTS, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF HEALTH

COVID-19 Pandemic v. WORKERS, INCLUDING KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR
Government of Andhra OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH EXPLAINED
Pradesh, Represented
by its Chief Secretary 2020 SCC OnLine AP 37
and Others (Andhra
Pradesh HC)
36. Suo Motu v. State of Discussed and placed on record the GOI report
Gujarat and Others cancelling Visa of all foreign nationals participated in
(Gujrat HC) Tablighi Jamat event. Also discussed on measures
taken by Gujarat Government to tackle the spread of
pandemic.
2020 SCC OnLine Guj 505
37. Air Traffic Controllers Stay granted on use of breath analyzer test and other
Guild (India) v. Union of directions issued to AAI & DGCA as a temporary
India and Others (Delhi measure to secure the interest of petitioners.
HC) 2020 SCC OnLine Del 486
38. NARESH KUMAR v. The Court rejected the petition seeking complete
DIRECTOR OF exemption from payment of any fee, including tuition
EDUCATION & ANR. fee, to schools during the period of lockdown and
(Delhi HC) opined that so long as education was being imparted
online, and students were availing its benefit, schools
could not be treated as “closed” so as to disentitle
them from charging tuition fees.
39. DELHI ROZI-ROTI The Court on an application concerning widespread

ADHIKAR ABHIYAN v. violation of the National Food Security Act, 2013
UNION OF INDIA AND during the lockdown directed the State Government to
ORS (Delhi HC) ensure that all ration shops remain operational and
disburse PDS food grains in accordance with the policy.
40. K.Narayanan v. State of The Court dismissed a plea seeking to reveal the
Tamil Nadu (Madras HC) identities of persons afflicted by COVID-19 on
Government websites, so that others who believe they
have come into contact with such persons may
quarantine themselves pointing out that the Central
Government itself has recognised that it is likely that
social stigma will be associated with the disease.
41. BALU The Court issued a slew of directions to ensure that

GOPLALAKRISHNAN & New York-based data analysis company, Sprinklr, does
Ors v. State of Kerala & not misuse the sensitive COVID-19 data entrusted to
Ors (Kerala HC) it by the Kerala Government as part of its COVID-19
data management efforts.
LABOUR LAWS
42. KERALA VYDYUTHI The Court on a Petition challenging state government's

MAZDOOR SANGHAM & recent decision to defer paying six days' worth salaries
ORS. v. STATE OF to government employees for the next five months in
KERALA & ORS (Kerala the wake of the COVID-19 crisis stayed the Operation
HC) of Govt decision for two months while holding that
Payment of salary is certainly not a matter of bounty.
It is a right vested in every individual to receive the
salary. Article 300A of the Constitution which confers
a right to property will include within its purview
"salary" also a property, at least prima facie."
http://highcourtofkerala.nic.in/covid_files/WPCTMP18
2202028042020.pdf
43. Align Components Pvt. The Court on a petition challenging the notification
Ltd and another v. Union issued by the GOI dated 29/03/2020 held that the
of India and others workers would be expected to report for duties as per
(Bombay HC) the shift schedules subject to adequate protection,
from Corona Virus infections, by the employer in areas
where restrictions are lifted in Maharashtra. In the
event such workers voluntarily remain absent, the
Management would be at liberty to deduct their wages
for their absence subject to the procedure laid down in
Law while initiating such action. This would apply even
to areas where there may not have been a lock down.
https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/generatenewauth.php
?bhcpar=cGF0aD0uL3dyaXRlcmVhZGRhdGEvZGF0YS
9hdXJjaXZpbC8yMDIwLyZmbmFtZT1XUDEwNTY5MjA
zMDA0MjAucGRmJnNtZmxhZz1OJnJqdWRkYXRlPSZ1c
GxvYWRkdD0zMC8wNC8yMDIwJnNwYXNzcGhyYXNlPT
AzMDUyMDE2MDMxNw==
44. K.Amsa Kannan v. State The Court dismissed Plea for Reduction in Salary of
of Tamil Nadu (Madras Government Servants holding that it is a matter of
HC) Govt. Policy.
MISCELLENEOUS LAWS
45. M/S. BT INDIA PRIVATE The Court allowed the petition seeking to quash two
LTD v. INCOME TAX Income Tax demand notices dated March 26, 2020, in
OFFICER (Delhi HC) connection with Assessment Years 2012-2013 and
2013-2014, and the subsequent penalty proceedings
initiated by Income Tax Department and held that
"Immediately after the lockdown is withdrawn by the
Government, a period of two weeks reckoned
therefrom is granted to the petitioner to reply to the
Notices to the show cause issued by the respondent.
Immediately after receiving replies to the Notices to
show cause, the respondent shall be at liberty to take
further steps in both the matters, in accordance with
law."
46. THE STATE OF ANDHRA The Court declined to interfere with the said decision
PRADESH of the Election Commission in issuing a Notification
v. dated 15.03.2020 postponing the elections for the
THE ANDHRA PRADESH local bodies such as Panchayats and Municipal Bodies
STATE ELECTION by six weeks or any other date on the ground of spread
COMMISSION (Andhra of COVID 19 particularly since the postponement is
Pradesh HC) due to possible outbreak of Corona virus (COVID 19)
epidemic in the
country.
47. Sopan Ramesh Lanjekar The Court on Application under Section 439 of the
v. State of Maharashtra Cr.P.C. for seeking regular bail held :-"Release of an
(Calcutta HC) accused or convict at the cost of breaching the order
of lockdown and at the cost of risking lives of many
cannot be considered to fall within the category of
“extreme urgent matter." Application deferred to later
date.
2020 SCC OnLine Bom 468
48. Mustak Hussain and The Court held that Lodging of Petitioners in
another v. State of Quarantine Centre to avoid spread of Covid-19 impact
Haryana & Ors (Punjab is not Illegal Confinement and dismissed the petition.
& Haryana HC)
49. Ali Akbar Shroff v. The Court on a bail application moved in the wake of
State of Maharashtra the COVID-19 pandemic observed thus:
(Bombay High Court) "It is for the Authorities to arrange for their affairs and
to ensure that the inmates who are presently housed
in the Jail are not infected by the virus on account of
over-crowding in jails and not be reminded of Right of
Inmates of a safe and healthy environment as even
while incarceration they equally enjoy right to life as
those in outside world."
https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/writereaddata/webor
ders/PDF/O0805202000021.pdf
PREPARED BY:
Somya Yadava, Partner, THS- The Law Firm somya.yadava@thslawfirm.co.uk
Ashutosh Jain, Associate, THS- The Law Firm Ashutosh.jain@thslawfirm.co.uk

Banking and Constitutional Law Judgments on COVID-19 Moratorium

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Banking and Constitutional Law Judgments on COVID-19 Moratorium

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sr.

Case Title Judgment

2. Indiabulls Housing The Petitioners sought directions to restrain HDFC

3. ASHWANI MEHRA v. The Court injuncted IOCL from encashing/invoking

7. AJAY KUMAR v. IIFL The Court allowed Interim Reoccupation to Debtor of

14. INDIABULLS The Court on a petition challenging the demands of

15. VALENCIO ROSENBERG Directed the respondent to take measures to arrange

18. MUSTAFA MH VERSUS Petition seeking safe return of pilgrims stranded in

20. IN RE: COGNIZANCE Order dated 23.03.2020

Order dated 06.05.2020

21. IN RE: CONTAGION OF Order dated 23.03.2020 - Constitution of High Level

Order dated 13.04.2020- Additional directions and

22. ALJO J. JOSEPH Vs Petitioner, a lawyer through prayer sought exemption

23. JAGDEEP S. The Court disposes of plea to allow movement of

26. Guruswami Natraj v. The Court refused to interfere in a Plea seeking

29. Mahendra Singh v. The Court on a plea of Habeas Corpus observed:

35. In Re. Corona Virus- RIGHTS, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF HEALTH

2020 SCC OnLine Guj 505

39. DELHI ROZI-ROTI The Court on an application concerning widespread

41. BALU The Court issued a slew of directions to ensure that

42. KERALA VYDYUTHI The Court on a Petition challenging state government's

Ashutosh Jain, Associate, THS- The Law Firm Ashutosh.jain@thslawfirm.co.uk

You might also like