Situs of the Mortgaged Property is not determinative of Territorial Jurisdiction of the DRT: Bombay HC | Live Law

Mumbai High Court  hold that the DRT whilst deciding whether it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a Securitisation Application filed under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act would be guided by the principles enshrined in section 19(1) of the RDDB Act and not by section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court said. 

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/situs-of-the-mortgaged-property-is-not-determinative-of-the-territorial-jurisdiction-of-the-drt-bombay-hc/







Situs of the Mortgaged Property is not determinative of Territorial Jurisdiction of the DRT: Bombay HC | Live Law

How banks will be impacted in the new lending rate regime

RBI has asked banks to price all new loans sanctioned or renewed from April 2016 based on the Marginal Cost of Funds-based Lending Rate (MCLR). This move sweetens the one proposed in the draft prospectus where the entire loan book of banks was expected to shift to the new mechanism.

What the guidelines mean for a common man is that the change in interest rates made by the central bank will now be based on a scientific method rather than leaving the judgement to the bank management.

How banks will be impacted in the new lending rate regime | Business Standard News

RBI is bound to disclose information under the RTI Act: Supreme Court

“RBI is supposed to uphold public interest and not the interest of individual banks. RBI is clearly not in any fiduciary relationship with any bank. RBI has no legal duty to maximize the benefit of any public sector or private sector bank, and thus there is no relationship of ‘trust’ between them. RBI has a statutory duty to uphold the interest of the public at large, the depositors, the country’s economy and the banking sector. Thus, RBI ought to act with transparency and not hide information that might embarrass individual banks.

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/breaking-no-fiduciary-relationship-between-rbi-rbi-is-bound-to-disclose-information-under-the-rti-act-supreme-court/











RBI is bound to disclose information under the RTI Act: SC | Live Law

Decoding the Indian financial code 2.0 | Business Standard News

Emerging Regulatory Framework for Indian Financial Sector with the emergence of Indian Financial Code.







Decoding the Indian financial code 2.0 | Business Standard News

NI Act Ordinance 2015 Retrospective; Dashrath Rathod's Jt have no effect in view of Amendment; SC | Live Law

A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices J.S.Khehar and R.Banumati has held that, in view of the Amended Section 142(2) of Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance 2015, the place where a cheque is delivered for collection i.e., the branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, where the drawee maintains an account, would be the determinative of the place of territorial jurisdiction for filing Complaint under the NI Act. The Bench was hearing an Appeal from an order dated 5.5. 2011 of Madhya Pradesh High Court in which it is held that the Jurisdiction to file a Complaint under NI Act lay only before the Court where-in the original drawee bank was located. The High Court relied on the Three Judge Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra.





“The words “…as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times…” used with reference to Section 142(2), in Section 142A(1) gives retrospectivity to the provision”. The Bench said











NI Act Ordinance 2015 Retrospective; Dashrath Rathod's Jt have no effect in view of Amendment; SC | Live Law