Back
N. SATHISH KUMAR
S. Ramachandran – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government Ministry of Finance Department of Finance – Respondent
ORDER :
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the impugned circular of the second respondent bearing Ref. RBI/2006-07/14 DBOD. Dir.BC.5/13.03.00/2006-07, dated 01.07.2006 as illegal and unconstitutional and opposed to public policy.
Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned circular of the second respondent bearing Ref. RBI/2006-07/14 DBOD. Dir.BC.5/13.03.00/2006-07, dated 01.07.2006 as illegal and unconstitutional and opposed to public policy.
2. The main ground on which the challenge is made to the circular is that the circular retrospectively directs all the banks to charge compound interest at monthly interest and also prescribing minimum rate of interest. According to the petitioner the rate of interest should be reasonable and the very concept of capitalization is only for the deterrent effect and not for unjust enrichment of the lenders. The impugned circular leads only to unjust enrichment and it mandatorily directs all the Banks to be Shylocks and as such it is opposed to public policy. The impugned circular is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and 19(1)(g) of
The circulars restricting District Central Co-operative Banks from accepting specified bank notes during demonetisation were lawful and did not violate statutory provisions, ensuring financial integr....
Banks must adhere to RBI guidelines regarding interest rates and cannot charge excessive rates without borrower consent, ensuring transparency and fairness in lending practices.
(1) Administrative policy decisions of Banks, do not constitute provisions/facilities of banking which may come under umbrella of ‘service’, defined under Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, ....
The RBI's imposition of directives under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act does not necessitate pre-decisional hearings, emphasizing the need for depositor protection over procedural formalit....
Judicial review over banking policies requires deference to regulatory authority unless proven arbitrary or unconstitutional.
Point of law: It would thus be seen that there are no disputed questions of fact requiring trial or otherwise a need to relegate the parties to the suit. It may also be mentioned that in the present ....
Provision of Section 24A of 1986 Act mandate observance of limitation period unless sufficient cause with a reasonable explanation is available for condoning delay to be recorded with reasons by Comm....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
