SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 1008

A.M.KHANWILKAR, D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
Vivek Narayan Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


ORDER

Writ Petitions are admitted.

2. Issue notice on the Writ Petitions, special leave petitions and other applications. The respondents may file reply affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder, if any, within three weeks thereafter.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. In our opinion, the following important questions fall for our consideration in this batch of petitions:

(i) Whether the notification dated 8th November 2016 is ultra vires Section 26(2) and Sections 7, 17, 23, 24, 29 and 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934;

(ii) Does the notification contravene the provisions of Article 300(A) of the Constitution;

(iii) Assuming that the notification has been validly issued under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 whether it is ultra vires Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution;

(iv) Whether the limit on withdrawal of cash from the funds deposited in bank accounts has no basis in law and violates Articles 14,19 and 21;

(v) Whether the implementation of the impugned notification(s) suffers from procedural and/or substantive unreasonableness and thereby violates Articles 14 and 19 and, if so, to what effect?

(vi) In the event that Section 26(2) is held to p


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top