“Arbitration cell”

This refers to Rustom Tirandaz’s letter "Arbitration cell” (Parsiana, December 7, 2005) regarding cases filed by Parsis against Parsis and the prominence given only to some cases.

First of all, Tirandaz’s understanding in the matter of court cases is incorrect. There are no decrees passed by the criminal courts under sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but sentences or fines are imposed if the accused are found guilty and news about the same falls in public domain. Newspapers and periodicals are free to carry such news or ignore it altogether.

Tirandaz is distressed, perhaps rightly so, by cases filed by Parsis against fellow Parsis and wants the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) to set up an arbitration cell to preside over disputes between two members of the community. A good idea. But I would like to ask him one question. Why were so many cases filed by the BPP against fellow Parsis during his term of seven years as a BPP trustee? Was he not a signatory to them? Why was no arbitration cell set up by the BPP to settle disputes between our community members during his long term of seven years with the BPP especially when he says "there is no dispute without a solution, if mature persons sit across the table.”

Actually he starts his letter with an astounding statement: "One is not sent to jail for bad business decisions.” I would like to tell him that all civilized countries have drafted laws and some of them are quite stringent. If no severe deterrent exists for non-repayment of loans by institutions, banks or individuals, particularly where large sums of monies are involved or where the accused is a habitual defaulter, the institutions, banks or individuals who have lent monies would face severe difficulties, bankruptcy or collapse if the defaulter only pleads that his was just a "bad business decision.” To keep the financial system healthy, all countries have stringent laws.

PHIROZE H. LILAOWALA