- 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
Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition Which Claimed That KIIFB Masala Bonds Violated Article 123(1) Of The Constitution
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition which had challenged the constitutional validity of the issue of financial instruments called ‘Masala Bonds’.Masala Bonds are a debt instrument denominated in Indian rupees, but settled in foreign currency, which were recently issued to overseas investors by the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB).The KIIFB...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition which had challenged the constitutional validity of the issue of financial instruments called ‘Masala Bonds’.
Masala Bonds are a debt instrument denominated in Indian rupees, but settled in foreign currency, which were recently issued to overseas investors by the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB).
The KIIFB had raised Rs 2,150 crore through the issue of these bonds.
The petition was filed by a Thiruvananthapuram-based chartered accountant M R Ranjith Karthikeyan, who had contended that these bonds violated Article 293(1) of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner pointed out that as per Article 293(1), the state was allowed to borrow money only within the territory of the country.
He stated that the KIIFB had been constituted to raise and administer funds for infrastructure projects in the state of Kerala.
However, after the petition came up for hearing, the court pointed out that the investment was canvassed by the KIIFB and not the Kerala state government.
Subsequently, the counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition.