- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Businessman moves SC for deposit of pre-demonitisation currency notes in Bank
A Tamil Nadu businessman K Raman has moved the Supreme Court for depositing the erstwhile currency notes worth Rs. 1.17 crores to his bank account.In 2016, when the Union Government had demonitised the Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 currency notes, the businessman could not exchange his old notes which incurred huge financial losses to him. Allegedly criminal cases were filed against him under Section...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
A Tamil Nadu businessman K Raman has moved the Supreme Court for depositing the erstwhile currency notes worth Rs. 1.17 crores to his bank account.
In 2016, when the Union Government had demonitised the Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 currency notes, the businessman could not exchange his old notes which incurred huge financial losses to him. Allegedly criminal cases were filed against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
A bench of Justices N V Ramana, Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi admitted writ petition filed by Madurai-resident K Raman for consideration.
The Supreme Court issued a notice to the Centre and the RBI on his plea for permission to deposit the money in old currency notes, which was denied way back in 2016.
He claimed that he was the proprietor of Ajay Exim that dealt into purchase and supply of yarns and had invested the money into the rotation. He said he had issued post-dated cheques to several companies which had lodged cheque dishonour cases against him after the banks declined his request to deposit the money in old currency notes.
The Court sought a response from the Centre and RBI on his petition and tagged his plea along with a batch of matters pending in this regard.