News Details- (Get Professional Updates on Whatsapp, Msg on
8285393786) More
News
Lawyers file plea in Bombay HC challenging ban on Rs 500, Rs 1,000 notes
Two senior advocates have moved the Bombay high court (HC) urging it to take suo moto cognisance of the Union government’s decision to stop the circulation of all currency notes of the denomination of Rs500 and Rs1,000.
Advocate Jamshed Mistry and advocate Jabbar Singh moved the HC’s vacation bench on Wednesday arguing that the government’s move was rushed and had caused unprecedented inconvenience to the general public.
Justice MS Karnik, who was presiding over the vacation bench, has now directed the lawyers to plead their case before a regular bench of the court as “there were several questions of law involved”.
Mistry and Singh also cited a November 2 notification of the Reserve Bank of India that was sent out to all nationalised banks. In the notification, the RBI had said that as part of a ‘pilot project’, all banks must ensure that “within the next 15 days”, at least 10% of their authorised ATM machines should dispense currency notes of Rs100 denomination.
Mistry argued that the notification made it clear that this project was initiated on a pilot basis and thus, the Centre shouldn’t have rushed into it. As per the law, the government needed to come out with an ordinance and then an Act before such a move, he said.
Mistry said that in 1978, during the emergency, the ordinance followed by an Act called The High Denomination Bank Notes Act, 1978, was passed to bring demonetisation into effect. “Therefore, the requirement is that the current demonetisation could have been done only through an ordinance, or amendment of the Act, and not merely through a gazetted notification.”
He said that “merely giving four hours notice is no notice at all and that one’s right to life and right to occupation/conduct business were severely affected”. #casansaar (Hindustan Times)
Advocate Jamshed Mistry and advocate Jabbar Singh moved the HC’s vacation bench on Wednesday arguing that the government’s move was rushed and had caused unprecedented inconvenience to the general public.
Justice MS Karnik, who was presiding over the vacation bench, has now directed the lawyers to plead their case before a regular bench of the court as “there were several questions of law involved”.
Mistry and Singh also cited a November 2 notification of the Reserve Bank of India that was sent out to all nationalised banks. In the notification, the RBI had said that as part of a ‘pilot project’, all banks must ensure that “within the next 15 days”, at least 10% of their authorised ATM machines should dispense currency notes of Rs100 denomination.
Mistry argued that the notification made it clear that this project was initiated on a pilot basis and thus, the Centre shouldn’t have rushed into it. As per the law, the government needed to come out with an ordinance and then an Act before such a move, he said.
Mistry said that in 1978, during the emergency, the ordinance followed by an Act called The High Denomination Bank Notes Act, 1978, was passed to bring demonetisation into effect. “Therefore, the requirement is that the current demonetisation could have been done only through an ordinance, or amendment of the Act, and not merely through a gazetted notification.”
He said that “merely giving four hours notice is no notice at all and that one’s right to life and right to occupation/conduct business were severely affected”. #casansaar (Hindustan Times)
Category : Banking | Comments : 0 | Hits : 1221
Get Free Daily Updates Via e-Mail on Income Tax, Service tax, Excise and Corporate law
Search News
News By Categories More Categories
- Income Tax Dept serves notices to salaried individuals for documentary proof to claim exemptions
- Bank Branch Audit 2021 - Update on allotment of Branches
- Bank Branch Audit 2020 Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2021 Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2020 - Update on Allotment of Branches
- Police Atrocities towards CA in Faridabad - Its Time to be Unite
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates 2019
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2022 Updates
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates
- NFRA Imposes Monetary penalty of Rs 1 Crore on M/s Dhiraj & Dheeraj
- ICAI notifies earlier announced CA exam dates despite pending legal challenge before SC
- NFRA debars Auditors, imposes Rs 50 lakh penalties for lapses in Brightcom, CMIL cases
- GST Important Update - Enhancement in the GST Portal
- NFRA Slaps Rs 5 lakh Penalty on Audit Firm for lapses in Vikas WSP Audit Case
- CBDT extends due date for filing Form 10A/10AB upto 30th June, 2024
- RBI comes out with FEMA regulations for direct listing on international exchange
- RBI directs payment firms to track high-value, fishy transactions during elections
- NCLT orders insolvency proceedings against Subhash Chandra
- Income Tax dept starts drive to dispose of appeals, 0.54 million at last count
- Payment of MCA fees –electronic mode-regarding
- Budget '11-12' Parliament Completes Approval Exercise
- Satyam restrained from operating its accounts
- ICICI a foreign firm, subject to FDI norms: Govt
- Maha expects Rs 15 crore entertainment tax revenue from IPL
- CAG blames PMO for not acting against Kalmadi
- No service tax on visa facilitators: CBEC
- Provision of 15-minutes reading and planning time allowance to the candidates of Chartered Accountants Examinations
- Companies Bill to be taken up in Monsoon Session
- File Service Tax Return in time as Maximum Penalty increased 10 times to Rs. 20000

Comments