And reading out the disadvantages of Crypto.
The judge interrupts and asks how you are concerned with the consumer protection, it is not your concern. It is Govt. concern and not yours.
The judge asks for various reports mentioned in the IMC report which the Govt. claims as confidential.
Consequently the Judge immediately calls Solicitor General.
Justice Nariman directs SG to submit all these papers and also the earlier Inter disciplinary report by tomorrow in compilation with a copy to each party.
We request you to do maximum RT, Likes and share on the below mentioned Tweet in the link, so that the update reaches to each and every individual in the community.
You have a part to play!👇👇
This document mentions the necessity and concerns of enacting payment and settlement systems Act 2007.
Unauthorized alternate of payments were one of the concerns.
Justice Nariman points out that payment means that it has to be through legal tender always.
Counsel nods and says and Crypto is an alternative to that.
Counsel answers that prima facie they are not, but there is potential threat to undermine monetary policy.
This coverage is powered by @coindcx
You have role to play here. Please do maximum Like, RT and Share the below mentioned Tweet. It's your duty that each and every individual in this space should be made aware on latest updates.👇👇
RBI counsel is referring to a judgment.
Citation of the judgment is:
1992 2 SCC 343
The above judgment is being read by the counsel now in RBIs favour.
i.e., 2015 (4) SCC 770
Another judgment is being read by the counsel.
Star India Judgment is being referred to i.e., 20__ 2 SCC 104
Counsel answers Section 35 A of Banking regulation Act and Section 18 of PSS Act, 2007.
Counsel says yes since RBI has to deal with the challenges posing threat to the established system.
Vagueness of Circular - RBI has sufficiently described crypto in various docs.
Cheeze Burger Argument: RBI powers is well defined and can be exercised when there threat to monetary, fiscal and financial policy.
Mr. Divan concludes his arguments.
arguing how RBI changed its stance from caution to prohibition.
Mr. Sood answers My Lord yes it is a question but
Scndly, satisfaction of one authority cannot be allowed to be taken effect from the satisfaction of other authority.
Meaning thereby, RBI cannot take action based on the study held by others.
1. its use as payment system
2. its use in illicit activities.
So the Govt. has also not advocated about complete ban. it only said that vices should be eradicated/ regulated.
Where they have said that there is no need to ban.
And also read the reply given by RBI to it.
Offers to defer the case for 2 weeks as part heard, let the answer come on reconsideration of banking ban by RBI.
RBI has agreed.
After hearing arguments we are of the view that detailed representations by exchanges purusant to this court's order 17.05.2018, have not been answered point by point, therefore RBI to reply them with in 2 weeks. SG to furnish various docs within 1 week.