The Supreme Court today (July 3rd, 2018) has refused to stay the Reserve Bank of India’s Circular that was issued on April 6th, 2018 banning banks and financial institutions from providing services to any individual or business dealing in virtual currencies.
The petition has been filed by the
Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) seeking a stay on the
Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Circular, contending that the people who are holding such currency are now stuck with it and this could cause an irreparable loss for them. Senior Counsel
Aryama Sundaram, representing the petitioner argued that the matter is of urgent nature, considering that the deadline laid down in the RBI Circular is July 6.
Earlier, on April 6th RBI has issued instructions in exercise of powers conferred to it under
section 35Aread with
section 36(1)(a) of
Banking Regulation Act, 1949, section 35A read with section 36(1)(a) and
section 56of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949,
section 45JA and
45Lof the
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and
Section 10(2) read with
Section 18 of
Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. The circular stated that “In view of the associated risks, it has been decided that, with immediate effect, entities regulated by the Reserve Bank shall not deal in VCs or provide services for facilitating any person or entity in dealing with or settling VCs. Such services include maintaining accounts, registering, trading, settling, clearing, giving loans against virtual tokens, accepting them as collateral, opening accounts of exchanges dealing with them and transfer / receipt of money in accounts relating to purchase/ sale of VCs.” The petitioner further argued that
“Whatever regulation is required to deal with the issue of cryptocurrency needs to come, and should come. But it should not be done without considering the representation of the petitioners.” The RBI countered by saying that
cryptocurrencywas never really a legal tender. The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Chief Justice of India
Dipak Misra and Justices
AM Khanwilkar and
DY Chandrachud refusing to stay the RBI circular in question has issued a notice to the RBI and listed the matter for further consideration on July 20th, 2018.
RBI is "State" under Article 12, writ petition is maintainable against private bank discharging public functions : Calcutta HC
Judiciary
Mar 13, 2021
Snehal Khemka
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
2 Shares
The Calcutta High Court in a recent judgement held that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus, a writ petition is maintainable against it. The single judge bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya made the observations while dismissing objections made to the maintainability of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution against the General Manager, Consumer Education and Protection Cell (CEPC) of the RBI and the...
Loan Moratorium Case
Business
Dec 15, 2020
Mriganc Mishra, Intern Aquilas Legal Solutio
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
50 Shares
The Reserve Bank of India recently informed the Apex Court that borrowers opting for resolution of COVID-19 related stressed loans shall not be required to submit any specific plans. RBI said that borrowers may invoke resolution framework by submitting a request to the lending institutions. “The Resolution Framework does not require any resolution plan in any form to be submitted to the lending institutions at the time of request for invocation. Rather, for invocation, the borrowers are...
537 Views
![Cooperative Banks will Come Under the Regulatory Framework of RBI: Banking Regulation (Amendment) Bill, 2020 [READ BILL]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2020/09/lj_5458_rbi.jpg)
![Supreme Court Refuses to Stay RBI’s Circular Regarding Prohibition on Dealing in Virtual Currencies [Read Circular]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2019/07/lj_3777_SC-refuses-to-stay-RBI-circular-regarding-VCs-768x392.jpg)
Facebook Comments