🇮🇳🔥 PUBLIC AWARENESS: Why Are There Different Rules for Large Borrowers? 🔥🇮🇳
❓ Do large borrowers such as Adani, Ambani, and Subhash Chandra have CIBIL/credit scores?
❓ Can the credit score of a large borrower also become poor?
When an ordinary person approaches a bank for a loan, the bank generally limits the loan amount based on the value of the collateral, property, or gold. This raises an important question—
In matters related to Subhash Chandra, what was the basis for claims amounting to ₹22,006 crore?
And if the claim that his assets were worth approximately ₹40 crore at that time is correct, then—
❓ On what basis was such a huge amount of credit approved?
❓ Who carried out the valuation of the assets?
❓ Who assessed the risk?
❓ What guarantees or securities were taken?
💰 Now comes the question of the HAIRCUT.
Have you ever heard of a farmer taking a loan of ₹50,000 and the bank saying—
“Forget it… Just pay ₹15 and consider the account settled!”
But in the matter related to Subhash Chandra, it is claimed that against claims of approximately ₹22,006 crore, a repayment plan of around ₹6.5 crore was approved.
If these figures are correct, that would amount to approximately a 99.97% haircut.
❓ Who decided such a massive haircut?
Was it the bank?
Was it the creditors?
Was it the Committee of Creditors (CoC)?
Was the proposal submitted by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP/RP)?
Was it approved through the NCLT process?
The public wants to know—
What was the final decision-making process, and under whose authority was it approved?
🌾 When a farmer takes a loan, land is pledged as security.
🚜 If the loan is not repaid, the tractor may be seized.
🏠 If an ordinary person fails to pay EMIs, action can be taken against their home and property.
🏪 If a small business owner defaults, their shop and business may be put at risk.
But when it comes to large corporate loans, if only a very small amount is recovered against claims running into thousands of crores, the public has every right to ask—
🔴 What was the total outstanding amount?
🔴 How much money was actually recovered?
🔴 How much haircut was given?
🔴 What was the basis for the haircut?
🔴 Who proposed it?
🔴 Who approved it?
🔴 What was the justification for it in the interest of the public and the banks?
⚖️ Standards and benchmarks should not change.
Whether someone is poor or wealthy, a farmer or an industrialist—
The standards of the law and banking system should be the same for everyone.
The same standards used to assess an ordinary citizen should also be applied to large borrowers.
The same system used to recover loans from farmers should ensure transparent recovery and accountability in large corporate debt cases as well.
🇮🇳 One Nation.
One Law.
One Standard.
One Benchmark.
Equal Justice for All.
Our fight is not against any particular individual.
🔥 Our fight is against a system where different standards appear to exist for ordinary people and large borrowers.
📢 Do not change the standards.
Do not change the benchmark.
Keep the rules equal for everyone.
Give the public an account.
✍️ Raju Yadav — Jan-Jagran
#PublicAwareness #Haircut #CorporateDebt #CIBIL #BankingSystem #LoanRecovery #EqualJustice #Transparency #Accountability #OneStandard #OneBenchmark
If you want, I can also make this into a stronger, professional English LinkedIn/Facebook version while keeping the claims carefully worded as allegations/questions rather than established facts.
संदेश
0 टिप्पणियाँ