August 30, 2019

Businessman moves SC for deposit of pre-demonitisation currency notes in Bank

[ by Legal Era News Network ]


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.

Related Post

latest News

  • Court acquits nine in allegedly duping SBI of Rs 105 crores

    Recently, a Mumbai court acquitted nine people in a case of allegedly duping the State Bank of India (SBI) of Rs 105 crores.

    Read More
  • Reliance Jio Writes To Union Telecom Minister Urging Him To Reject Financial Relief Demand Of Telcos Hit By SC Order

    Mukesh Ambani-owned Reliance Jio has written a letter to Union Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad urging him to reject a demand by its rival telecom...

    Read More
  • Congress says it will provide explanation to SC for RaGa’s remarks on the Rafale case

    The remarks by Rahul Gandhi in the media on the Rafale case verdict were “incorrectly attributed” to the Supreme Court, the apex court has clarifi...

    Read More