Join our community of 10,000 traders on Hacked.com for only $ 39 a month
In the third sequence still the most ferocious attempt to shoot down the Reserve Bank of India's flyer blocking banking services to the exchange of cryptocurrency, four other Indian cryptocurrency exchanges jointly filed a written petition (civil) no. 373 of 2018 under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of the Central Bank Circular.
Exchanges of cryptocurrency that were transferred to the Supreme Court, with their Shareholders, against the RBI are (1) Coindelta Exchange managed by Bitfair Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon; (2) Koinex Exchange managed by Discidium Internet Labs Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai; (3) Throughbit Exchange managed by Throughbit technologies Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore and; (4) CoinDCX managed by Neblio Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai.
Only one month has passed since the Reserve Bank of India, Circular Circular issued on 6 April 2018, ordered the regulated banks and payment platforms to immediately suspend their services for the cryptocurrency, in the following words:
"… it was decided that, with immediate effect, the entities regulated by the Reserve Bank will not deal with venture capital or provide services to facilitate the management or liquidation of venture capital.These services include the maintenance of accounts, registration, trading, settlement, clearing, granting loans against virtual tokens, acceptance as collateral, l & rsquo; Opening of exchange accounts and the transfer / receipt of money in accounts.
In accordance with the current state of the Crypto litigation before the Supreme Court, before the last Petition Joint Four Fellowships, two written petitions of public interest are pending to rule on the legality / l? illegality of cryptocurrencies.
The first written petition no. 1071/2017 was filed in the public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution by Mr. Vijay Pal Dalmiya Advocate before the Supreme Court of India in which he requested a ban on the sale and purchase of cryptocurrencies on the grounds that it is used in illegal and illegal activities such as financing of terrorism, illegal trade in weapons and drugs, bribery, money laundering. 39, money, tax evasion, ransom payment etc. He also argues that the sale and purchase of cryptocurrency the existing laws of India, including the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; the Exchange Management Law of 1999; the law on money, 1906; the 1956 Securities Contracts Act (Regulation); the law of 1930 on the sale of goods; the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 and the Indian Contracts Act, 1872.
The second written petition no. 1076/2017 under Order 38 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 2013 read with Article 142, was filed in the public interest by Mr. Dwaipayan Bhowmick Advocate in which he requested a directive to regulate the flow of cryptocurrency and to ensure that cryptocurrency is reported to the Exchequer.
The RBI saying was followed by a public outcry over this unexpected step that detracted from the interest of a large number of cryptocurrency and start-up companies. In the first attempt to assault the RBI circular, Kali Digital Eco-systems Pvt. Ltd. which manages the exchange "CoinRecoil", approached the High Court of Delhi through a written petition no. 3677/2018, violation of his right to equality (Article 14) and right to trade [Article 19 (1) (g)] guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution of India. Just after that, another exchange, namely moneytradecoin.com approached the Delhi High Court challenging the RBI circular. Considering the similarity of the question in the two written Petitions, the Court labeled the questions and the same are likely to be heard on 24 May 1945.
The joint written application filed by the four constituencies was successful in being heard before the Court of Justice Adarsh Goel and Judge Indu Malhotra on 1 May 1945, which, having considered the issue, issued a notice to the Reserve Bank of India and marked the case with the other two petitions written pending. All written petitions are likely to be registered at the hearing in Court on the 11th May 2018.
It should be noted that all stakeholders in the crypto community have approached the Court for the protection of their rights, while the Crypto holder / investor is still not being reported. It will be interesting to expect an investor movement also to have their position heard as one of the most interested and affected parties!
About the author: Mohammed Danish is a lawyer and attorney at the Delhi High Court in India. You can follow the author on twitter @cryptokanoon, and direct your queries to [email protected]
Follow us on Telegram.