#BulletinBoard (May 17, 2018)

IAMAI Moves Supreme Court Over RBI’s Cryptocurrency Ban

IAMAI (Internet and Mobile Association of India) has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court to put a stay on the April 06, 2018 Reserve Bank of India circular titled “Prohibition on dealing with Virtual Currencies” which disallowed the banks to provide services to cryptocurrency trading platforms. Two separate petitions filed earlier by cryptocurrency exchanges Kali Digital Ecosystem and Flinstone Technologies, opposing the RBI’s order are set to be heard by the Delhi High Court.

SC on Dearness Relief of Bank Retirees, Pre- Post Nov 2002

The Supreme Court in its judgment in United Bank of India and Ors. v. United Bank of India Retirees’ Welfare Association and Ors. dated May 16, 2018, held that for the purpose of determining the distinction between pre-November 2002 bank retirees and post-November 2002 retirees in payment of dearness relief, both the categories of retirees would stand on different footing and the parameters which govern the computation of dearness relief are also on a different level. However, the Court also noted that any stepping up of benefit for a section of employees is bound to inflate the figure of INR 1288 crores per annum which was set apart for the benefit of the employees vide a 2005 bipartite settlement.

The Apex Court was in agreement with the decision of the Madras High Court in AB Kasturirangan v. Canara Bank etc.  wherein it was held that “If we adopt a flat rate of 0.24% as is being prayed for, the class of retirees who retired before 01.11.2002 will stand conferred better rate than those employees who retired after 01.11.2002. Nor can we apply a flat rate of 0.18% for them. Each class is governed by distinct and different parameters. These are all matters of policy making. The conferral of advantages of benefits on two different classes of retirees has a completely distinct formula and rates and it would not be possible to have a synthesis on any count or to put both the sets of retirees on any common parameters. Both classes are distinct and do not form a homogenous group. It would be extremely difficult and hazardous to adopt a flat rate as is sought to be projected”.

Disclaimer

As per rules of the Bar Council of India, advocates are not permitted to solicit work or advertise. By clicking on the “I agree” button below and accessing this website, the User acknowledges that by accessing this website (www.gamechangerlaw.com):