- 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
- AI
- 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
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Bombay High Court directs RBI to replace demonetized currency
Bombay High Court directs RBI to replace demonetized currency
The bench also guided the petitioner to mention the serial numbers of the notes
The Bombay High Court has directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to replace the demonetized currency notes with valid notes, complying with the recommended requirements.
The petitioner, Kishor Ramesh Sohoni, had filed a case at the Dombivali Police Station. On the basis of the complaint JFCM-3, Kalyan, Thane, directed the accused to deposit Rs.1.6 lakhs at the police station. This was done, prior to the 2016 demonetization of the currency.
Later the JMFC directed the petitioner to collect the money from the police station, but he was handed over the old currency notes.
The petitioner, therefore, approached the RBI to replace the old currency, as all along it had been in the custody of the police station. But the RBI responded by saying that since the petitioner had not submitted any order issued by the court in accordance with the requirements mentioned in the Specified Bank Notes (SBN) Rules, it could not exchange/deposit the notes.
The petitioner then filed a writ before the high court under Article 226.
The division bench comprising of Justice GS Patel and Justice Madhav J Jamdar directed the RBI to replace the currency tendered by the petitioner with the current valid tender. It was subject to the petitioner complying with other requirements such as mentioning the serial numbers of the currency.