<p>More than two years after the Union government's decision to demonetise Rs 500 and 1000 currency notes, a businessman from Tamil Nadu has approached the Supreme Court to remit back Rs 1.17 crore to his bank account.<br /><br />On Friday, a bench of Justices N V Ramana, Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi admitted writ petition filed by Madurai-resident K Raman for consideration.<br /><br />The court issued a notice to the Centre and the RBI on his plea for permission to deposit the money in old currency notes, which was denied to due to "arbitrary, whimsical and discriminatory exercise of power in violation of his fundamental rights under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution".<br /><br />The petitioner, represented by advocate C R Jaya Sukin, contended despite his repeated representations to the RBI, he could not be able to exchange his old notes, which he tried to deposit before the last date of December 30, 2016, resulting into huge losses to him and the possibility of criminal cases.<br /><br />He claimed that he was the proprietor of Ajay Exim that dealt into purchase and supply of yarns and had invested the money into the rotation.<br /><br />He said he had issued post-dated cheques to several companies which had lodged cheque dishonour cases against him after the banks declined his request to deposit the money in old currency notes.<br /><br />The court, which sought a response from the Centre and RBI on his petition, tagged his plea along with a batch of matters pending in this regard.</p>
<p>More than two years after the Union government's decision to demonetise Rs 500 and 1000 currency notes, a businessman from Tamil Nadu has approached the Supreme Court to remit back Rs 1.17 crore to his bank account.<br /><br />On Friday, a bench of Justices N V Ramana, Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi admitted writ petition filed by Madurai-resident K Raman for consideration.<br /><br />The court issued a notice to the Centre and the RBI on his plea for permission to deposit the money in old currency notes, which was denied to due to "arbitrary, whimsical and discriminatory exercise of power in violation of his fundamental rights under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution".<br /><br />The petitioner, represented by advocate C R Jaya Sukin, contended despite his repeated representations to the RBI, he could not be able to exchange his old notes, which he tried to deposit before the last date of December 30, 2016, resulting into huge losses to him and the possibility of criminal cases.<br /><br />He claimed that he was the proprietor of Ajay Exim that dealt into purchase and supply of yarns and had invested the money into the rotation.<br /><br />He said he had issued post-dated cheques to several companies which had lodged cheque dishonour cases against him after the banks declined his request to deposit the money in old currency notes.<br /><br />The court, which sought a response from the Centre and RBI on his petition, tagged his plea along with a batch of matters pending in this regard.</p>
