Tag: 成都90分钟2q自带工作室

Drink driving offences down but drug seizures up in Limerick latest…

first_imgAdvertisement Limerick on Covid watch list Is Aer Lingus taking flight from Shannon? NewsCrime & CourtDrink driving offences down but drug seizures up in Limerick latest crime stats revealBy Staff Reporter – March 26, 2019 1036 Email Previous articleReview: How to put the ‘Sis’ into GenesisNext articleShannon Group boss is on the move Staff Reporterhttp://www.limerickpost.ie WhatsApp RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Local backlash over Aer Lingus threat Facebookcenter_img TAGSAn Garda SíochánaCrimeLimerick City and CountyNewsstatistics Print TechPost | Episode 9 | Pay with Google, WAZE – the new Google Maps? and Speak don’t Type! Shannon Airport braced for a devastating blow Linkedin Twitter INCIDENTS of drink driving in Limerick dropped during the last three months of 2018 according to the latest recorded crime statistics released by the Central Statistics office.The latest figures show that a number of crime categories in the Limerick Garda Division saw a sharp rise in the last three months of 2018.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up The number of overall drug seizures rose by almost 40 per cent to 188 from 135 in the previous quarter.The majority of offences (138) related to seizures associated with personal drug use.46 incidents were linked to the sale or supply of controlled drugs while there were no reported incidents of importation or the cultivation of drugs during the last quarter of 2018.While incidents of drink driving dropped from 90 to 61 in Q4, endangering traffic offences rose to 15 from 5 in the same period.Murder threats were up to 23 from the 20 threats recorded in July, August and September.Sex offences, including rape and sexual assaults, were up from 28 to 42.Burglary offences for the last quarter rose to 225 from 209 and overall theft offences rose to 857 from 792 in Q3.Fraudulent incidents rose to 74 from 59 in the Limerick Garda division while weapons and explosive incidents rose to 49 from 26.The Garda initiative targeting the sale or possession of illegal fireworks in the run up to Halloween was also reflected in the 23 offences recorded, an increase of 22 on the previous three months.The statistics also revealed that damage to property and to the environment rose from 308 to 342 and there were 12 liquor licensing offences, an increase from the five recorded incidents in the previous three months.The statistics published under reservation by the CSO means that there are data quality issues in the underlying sources used to compile these statistics, but early indications show that anti drink driving measures undertaken by theCommenting on the latest Recorded Crime statistics, Sam Scriven, statistician said: “The publication of the latest Recorded Crime statistics provides the best available measure of crime reported in Ireland while informing users of concerns regarding the quality of the underlying data.On a national scale, “the statistics show increases in the reporting of fraud and sexual offences. The numbers of burglaries and theft incidents both fell although there was a rise in the numbers of reported robberies.” Housing 37 Compulsory Purchase Orders issued as council takes action on derelict sites last_img read more

‘We Cannot Recover Economy By Ignoring Banking Sector’: Centre Tells SC In Pleas Seeking Extension Of Loan Moratorium & Interest Waiver

first_imgTop Stories’We Cannot Recover Economy By Ignoring Banking Sector’: Centre Tells SC In Pleas Seeking Extension Of Loan Moratorium & Interest Waiver Sanya Talwar2 Sep 2020 5:40 AMShare This – xVarious stakeholders and affected parties made submissions before the top court in the plea(s) concerning waiver of interest on term loans during the covid19 induced moratorium period.On the last date, a bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy & MR Shah had directed the Centre to file an affidavit, clearly stipulating its take on the issue of interest payments within a week…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginVarious stakeholders and affected parties made submissions before the top court in the plea(s) concerning waiver of interest on term loans during the covid19 induced moratorium period.On the last date, a bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy & MR Shah had directed the Centre to file an affidavit, clearly stipulating its take on the issue of interest payments within a week and listed the case for further consideration on September 1.Today, the hearing began with Senior Advocate Rajiv Dutta appeared for the Petitioner(s) submitted that charging of “interest on interest” is prima facie void in light of ongoing pandemic situation.”We thought we are secure when they waived our EMI’s but they ended up charging us with compound interest – a kind of double whammy on us,” he said.Dutta added that as the lockdown was imposed viz. the Disaster Management Act, 2005, section 13 stipulates power upon the concerned authority to grant relief to citizens. He then drew corollaries between how the Governments of USA & UK were helping out citizens but in India, the people were being penalised. Senior Advocate CA Sundaram (for CREDAI Maharashtra & Association of Power Producers) appeared for the Real Estates Association of India. He submitted that banks cannot have sole discretion to work out the financial nitty gritty’s. “Everything is left without guidelines, to the individual banks. The whole aim is for all of us to survive. Thats all I can appeal to your lordships”, he added. Next Senior Advocate KV Vishwanathan (Power Producers Association) said that the levy of interest for the period of moratorium and should be proportionate to what banks have to pay to depositors and charges basis the doctrine of proportionality. “Power is the most stressed sector and this is an extraordinary situation” he said.  Vishwanathan further submitted that RBI had not paid any heed to proportionality and was merely indulging in “eye-wash”. “RBI Circular an attempt to hoodwink borrowers and top court,” he said.Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appearing for Shopping Centre’s Association took the bench through the hardships faced by shop’s during the pandemic. “We were totally closed. We are shopping centres. We were asked to pay our employees, we kept on paying them. Footfalls in shopping centres next to zero,” he submitted. Next, he highlighted provisions of the Disaster Management Act including sections 13, 16 & 18. He is justified how statute provides for action to mitigate the effects of a “Disaster”, which in this case, he says, is the ongoing pandemic. Senior Advocate Ravindra Shrivastava said that he shall adopt Senior Advocate Rajiv Dutta’s submissions while supplementing his own. He contended that actually it was the National Disaster Management Authority and the Central Government which was required to pan put a framework to tackle this issue. “No one (GOI & NDMA) worked within the framework of the Disaster Management Act. It is the jurisdiction of the GOI to formulate a framework. Right authority is the central govt, this is a policy issue” he added.At this juncture, the court noted that, “the question is not whether the government has this right under the Disaster Management Act (DMA). The government has authority. The real question is whether the government has exercised this right under the DMA or not”Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde for Jewellers Association said that he seeks Extension of moratorium for a reasonable time and the effects of which can be used as a relief by borrowers. “I am obliged to repay my debts, time granted is on the basis of an overwhelming disaster” he added.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal urged the bench to extend the moratorium.”Obligations under section 13 must be discharged and the NDMA must come up with a comprehensive plan. At the moment, I am only praying for an extension of #moratorium for 3 months & waiver of interest on interest,” he said.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made submissions on behalf of the Centre & RBI. He said that first thrust by RBI was to reduce the pressure of repayment of loan. “Holistically, what eventually transpired post-COVID period was then, revival of sectors so economy starts moving. Third was reconstruction of stressed assets,” Mehta said.”We cannot look at recovering the economy by ignoring the banking sector, so that they do not become financially unstable. This is indeed a difficult way forward”, he added. Advocates Ashish Virmani, Abhimanyu Bhandari, Vinayak Bhandari, Ashok Lambat & Vishal Tiwari also made submissions on behalf of various petitioner(s) and intervenors.The arguments will continue tomorrow and Solicitor General is expected to continue.Background:The bench was hearing a plea filed by an Agra resident Gajendra Sharma, who has sought a direction to declare the portion of the RBI’s March 27 notification “as ultra vires to the extent it charges interest on the loan amount during the moratorium period, which create hardship to the petitioner being borrower and creates hindrance and obstruction in ‘right to life’ guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.Earlier, the Supreme Court had said there was “no merit in charging interest on interest” for deferred loan payment instalments during the moratorium period announced in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic & that once moratorium is fixed, it should serve the desired purposes and the government should consider interfering in the matter as it could not leave everything to banks.The petitioner has sought a direction to the government and the RBI to provide relief in repayment of loan by not charging interest during moratorium period.On June 4, the top court had sought the Finance Ministry’s reply on waiver of interest on loans during the moratorium period after the RBI said it would not be prudent to go for a forced waiver of interest risking financial viability of the banks.The apex court had said there are two aspects under consideration in this matter – no interest payment on loans during the moratorium period and no interest to be charged on interest.It had observed that these are challenging times and it is a serious issue as on the one hand, moratorium is granted and on other hand, interest is charged on loans.On May 26, the top court had asked the Centre and the RBI to respond to the plea challenging levy of interest on loans during the moratorium period.The RBI in its reply has told the court that it is taking all possible measures to provide relief with regard to debt repayments on account of the fallout of COVID-19 but it does not consider it prudent to go for a forced waiver of interest, risking the financial viability of the banks it is mandated to regulate, and putting the interests of the depositors in jeopardy .The RBI said the March 27 circular announcing moratorium was later modified on April 17 and May 23 by which the moratorium period was extended by another three months that is from June 1 to August 31, 2020 on payment of all installments in respect of term loans (including agricultural term loans, retail and crop loans).”It is submitted that regulatory dispensations permitted by the Reserve Bank of India vide the aforesaid circulars dated March 27, 2020 which subsequently stood modified on April 17, 2020 and May 23, 2020 were with the objective of mitigating the burden of debt servicing brought about by disruptions on account of COVID-19 pandemic and to ensure the continuity of viable businesses. Therefore, the regulatory package is, in its essence, in the nature of a moratorium/deferment and cannot be construed to be a waiver,” it said.The RBI had said that in order to ameliorate difficulties faced by borrowers in repaying accumulated interest for the moratorium period, on May 23 it had announced that in respect of working capital facilities, lending institutions may, at their discretion, convert the accumulated interest for the deferment period up to August 31, 2020, into a funded interest term loan (FITL) which shall be repayable not later than March 31, 2021.Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more