Dear Ankit
Since I was responding to K.S Dhingra ji (a legal expert), I was slightly concise in my explanations, and you got confused..
I did not claim that currency note is a bearer cheque. I said it is "akin" to a bearer cheque, ie. "similar" to a bearer cheque.
Actually, a currency note is a "note" and NOT a cheque, but is excluded from being a promissory note under section 4 of the "Negotiable Instruments Act" used for dishonoured cheques. Hence there is no explicit time limit on a currency note's validity. As per the Bank of England, a bank note is valid till the note and the issuer Bank both exist.
Since it is a bearer note, the international banking practice is not to insist on ID while bank notes are exchanged. However, nowadays there are some internationally agreed money laundering norms for which ID may be requested beyond a reasonable threshhold..
The Courts have already started passing judgments on some exceedingly poor quality PILs being filed by pubicity seeking advocates all across the country.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/137292652/
The Supreme Court had also decided a case in 1996 which the Govt will probably rely on
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199635/
However, in my view, it is an exceptionally poorly reasoned and expedient decision,
The test however, in the present cases will be on sections 26 and Section 39 of RBI Act and the Govt exceedings its powers. But the law moves very slowly.
FYI, the RBI has specifically clarified that the pre 2005 OHD withdrawn notes of Rs. 500 and Rs.1,000 can also be deposited into bank accounts. (this supports the Bank of England's position that bank notes cannot be unilaterally extinguished along with their statutory sovereign debt repayment obligations)
https://rbi.org.in/Scripts/FAQView.aspx?Id=119
The Hindustan Republican Army is very concerned with the highly polarised situation being manufactured in the country. Accordingly I have been requested by IAC-HQ to co-chair their core committee meetings across India in next 2 weeks being attended by representatives from a wide spectrum of various influential nation building and also religious organisations.
Obviously we all want least possible disruption to poor people while achieving maximum national objectives. So you can be sure that very tough questions (also based on IAC member queries/concerns) will be asked and answered at our conclaves before INDIA AGAINST CORRUPTION formalises its future path / strategy, including our political path.
Sarbajit Roy
On 11/28/16, Ankit Khetan <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net> wrote:
> Respected Sarbajit ji,Previously I was not able to understand the matter
> fully, sometimes I used to think that your point is correct. But after many
> discussions among the subscribers I think that the Mr. K S Dhingra ji is
> saying correct.
>As per you the currency note is bearer cheque. Previously you
> have seen that govt. have put time limit on bank cheques of 3 months from 6
> months. As govt have power to put time limit on any cheque then on that
> basis this bearer cheque can also be brought under the time limit
> restriction.And this time limit is not for the first time, previously also
> this was done in 2005 previous notes.And as in the bank cheque now a days
> most banks asks for ID proof of the holder of the cheque who goes to encash
> the money. And in this case also govt is asking for ID proof.So in no case
Since I was responding to K.S Dhingra ji (a legal expert), I was slightly concise in my explanations, and you got confused..
I did not claim that currency note is a bearer cheque. I said it is "akin" to a bearer cheque, ie. "similar" to a bearer cheque.
Actually, a currency note is a "note" and NOT a cheque, but is excluded from being a promissory note under section 4 of the "Negotiable Instruments Act" used for dishonoured cheques. Hence there is no explicit time limit on a currency note's validity. As per the Bank of England, a bank note is valid till the note and the issuer Bank both exist.
Since it is a bearer note, the international banking practice is not to insist on ID while bank notes are exchanged. However, nowadays there are some internationally agreed money laundering norms for which ID may be requested beyond a reasonable threshhold..
The Courts have already started passing judgments on some exceedingly poor quality PILs being filed by pubicity seeking advocates all across the country.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/
The Supreme Court had also decided a case in 1996 which the Govt will probably rely on
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/
However, in my view, it is an exceptionally poorly reasoned and expedient decision,
The test however, in the present cases will be on sections 26 and Section 39 of RBI Act and the Govt exceedings its powers. But the law moves very slowly.
FYI, the RBI has specifically clarified that the pre 2005 OHD withdrawn notes of Rs. 500 and Rs.1,000 can also be deposited into bank accounts. (this supports the Bank of England's position that bank notes cannot be unilaterally extinguished along with their statutory sovereign debt repayment obligations)
https://rbi.org.in/Scripts/
"3. Does the scheme apply to pre 2005 banknotes of ₹ 500 and ₹ 1000?
Yes, specified banknotes (SBN) include pre 2005 banknotes in the
denominations of Rs.500 and Rs.1000. Banks should accept deposits of
pre-2005 bank notes in the denominations of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 under
the scheme. However, these notes can be exchanged at RBI Offices
only."
Yes, specified banknotes (SBN) include pre 2005 banknotes in the
denominations of Rs.500 and Rs.1000. Banks should accept deposits of
pre-2005 bank notes in the denominations of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 under
the scheme. However, these notes can be exchanged at RBI Offices
only."
The Hindustan Republican Army is very concerned with the highly polarised situation being manufactured in the country. Accordingly I have been requested by IAC-HQ to co-chair their core committee meetings across India in next 2 weeks being attended by representatives from a wide spectrum of various influential nation building and also religious organisations.
Obviously we all want least possible disruption to poor people while achieving maximum national objectives. So you can be sure that very tough questions (also based on IAC member queries/concerns) will be asked and answered at our conclaves before INDIA AGAINST CORRUPTION formalises its future path / strategy, including our political path.
Sarbajit Roy
On 11/28/16, Ankit Khetan <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
> Respected Sarbajit ji,Previously I was not able to understand the matter
> fully, sometimes I used to think that your point is correct. But after many
> discussions among the subscribers I think that the Mr. K S Dhingra ji is
> saying correct.
>As per you the currency note is bearer cheque. Previously you
> have seen that govt. have put time limit on bank cheques of 3 months from 6
> months. As govt have power to put time limit on any cheque then on that
> basis this bearer cheque can also be brought under the time limit
> restriction.And this time limit is not for the first time, previously also
> this was done in 2005 previous notes.And as in the bank cheque now a days
> most banks asks for ID proof of the holder of the cheque who goes to encash
> the money. And in this case also govt is asking for ID proof.So in no case
> the stand of government is wrong as time limit period is also not of the
> short period.
>Yes some person may say that they do not know of this
> situation but due to vast media presence when person is on such a long trip
> then in India people might not be unaware of the situation atleast.
>
> Ankit Khetan India
>
> short period.
>Yes some person may say that they do not know of this
> situation but due to vast media presence when person is on such a long trip
> then in India people might not be unaware of the situation atleast.
>
> Ankit Khetan India
>
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.