Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934

Supreme Court mandates hearing for borrowers before classifying accounts as fraud in banking cases (27 March 2023)

/ Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 35A, Classification of Accounts as Fraud, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Hima Kohli, Judges, Master Directions on Frauds, Powers of RBI, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934

Supreme Court Mandates Hearing for Borrowers Before Fraud Classification Date of the Judgment: 27 March 2023 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7300 of 2022 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Hima Kohli, J Can a bank declare a borrower’s account as fraudulent without giving them a chance to be heard? The Supreme Court of India recently […]

Supreme Court mandates hearing for borrowers before classifying accounts as fraud in banking cases (27 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows Banks’ challenge to RBI’s disclosure of information under RTI Act: HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. Union of India (2022)

/ B.R. Gavai, Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 35, C.T. Ravikumar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 with Section 45NB, Right to Information Act, 2005, Right to Information Act, 2005 with Section 11, Right to Information Act, 2005 with Section 8

Supreme Court allows Banks’ challenge to RBI’s disclosure of information under RTI Act: HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. Union of India (2022) Date of the Judgment: 30 September 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 838 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J. Can a previous judgment of the Supreme Court be challenged through a writ petition? The Supreme

Supreme Court allows Banks’ challenge to RBI’s disclosure of information under RTI Act: HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. Union of India (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds SIDBI’s Actions in Bond Payment Dispute: Small Industries Development Bank of India vs. M/S. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2022)

/ Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 441(2), Companies Act, 1956 with Section 531, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Subhash Reddy, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 with Section 45-JA, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 with Section 45-MB

Supreme Court Upholds SIDBI’s Actions in Bond Payment Dispute: Small Industries Development Bank of India vs. M/S. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) was justified in withholding payments on bonds due to regulatory directives and concerns over fraudulent transactions. CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Case Name:

Supreme Court Upholds SIDBI’s Actions in Bond Payment Dispute: Small Industries Development Bank of India vs. M/S. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds RBI’s Authority in Bond Dispute: SIDBI vs. Sibco Investment (2022)

/ Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 35-A, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 441(2), Companies Act, 1956 with Section 531, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Subhash Reddy, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 with Section 45-JA, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 with Section 45-MB

Supreme Court Upholds RBI’s Authority in Bond Dispute: SIDBI vs. Sibco Investment (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) directives regarding the transfer of bonds are binding on financial institutions. CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Banking Law. Case Name: Small Industries Development Bank of India vs. M/s. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd. Judgment

Supreme Court Upholds RBI’s Authority in Bond Dispute: SIDBI vs. Sibco Investment (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Electoral Bond Scheme: Association for Democratic Reforms vs. Union of India (26 March 2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 128, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 129, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 182, Constitutional Law, Electoral Bond Scheme, Judges, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 29C, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 with Section 31, S. A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Electoral Bond Scheme: Association for Democratic Reforms vs. Union of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 should be stayed. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation, Constitutional Law Case Name: Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 26 March 2021 Date

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Electoral Bond Scheme: Association for Democratic Reforms vs. Union of India (26 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Strikes Down RBI Ban on Cryptocurrency Trading: Internet and Mobile Association of India vs. Reserve Bank of India (2020) INSC 248 (4 March 2020)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 35A, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 36(1)(a), Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(g), Constitutional Law with Article 19(6), Fundamental Rights, Judges, Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 with Section 10(2), Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 with Section 18, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 with Section 45JA, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 with Section 45L, Rohinton Fali Nariman, V. Ramasubramanian

Date of the Judgment: 4 March 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 248 Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Aniruddha Bose, V. Ramasubramanian Can a central bank impose a blanket ban on cryptocurrency trading? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a landmark judgment. The court struck down the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) ban

Supreme Court Strikes Down RBI Ban on Cryptocurrency Trading: Internet and Mobile Association of India vs. Reserve Bank of India (2020) INSC 248 (4 March 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Consideration of Depositors’ Claims in DHFL Insolvency: Vinay Kumar Mittal vs. DHFL (2020)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Deepak Gupta, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 14, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 21(6A)(b), Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, National Housing Bank Act, 1987, National Housing Bank Act, 1987 with Section 36, National Housing Bank Act, 1987 with Section 36(A), Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 with Section 45(q)(a)

Supreme Court Directs Consideration of Depositors’ Claims in DHFL Insolvency: Vinay Kumar Mittal vs. DHFL (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the claims of fixed deposit holders should be prioritized over other creditors during the insolvency resolution process of a financial service provider. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Vinay Kumar Mittal & Ors. vs. Dewan Housing

Supreme Court Directs Consideration of Depositors’ Claims in DHFL Insolvency: Vinay Kumar Mittal vs. DHFL (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes RBI Circular on Stressed Assets: Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India (2 April 2019)

/ Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 35A, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 35AA, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 35AB, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 with Section 45L, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Quashes RBI Circular on Stressed Assets: Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolved around the validity of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circular dated 12.02.2018, which prescribed a revised framework for the resolution of stressed assets, particularly concerning the timelines for referring

Supreme Court Quashes RBI Circular on Stressed Assets: Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India (2 April 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court holds Reserve Bank of India not an “establishment” under Contract Labour Act: RBI vs. State (2008)

/ Arijit Pasayat, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 482, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, Mukundakam Sharma, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 with Section 2(e), The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 with Section 2(e)(i)

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 30, 2008 Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Is the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) an “establishment” as defined under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970? This question was at the heart of a legal battle between the Reserve Bank of India and the

Supreme Court holds Reserve Bank of India not an “establishment” under Contract Labour Act: RBI vs. State (2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top