LexJYANTILAL RATANCHAND SHAH versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JYANTILAL RATANCHAND SHAH v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS AUGUST 9, 1996 [KULDIP SINGH, M.M. PUNCHHI, N.P. SINGH, M.K. MUKHERJEE ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act, 1978: Ss. 3, 4, 7 and 8. A B c Constitutionality of--High denomination bank notes ceased to be legal tender after 16.l.1978-Rese1ve Bank of India tlw~by 1dieved from making paymelll--Held: in effect Act extinguished or wiped out public debt owing to holders of high denomination bank notes from State and consequently their 'property' was compulso1ily acquired-But conside1ing !he evil the Act sought D to remedy as set out in its Preamble, acquisition was for public pur- pose--Hence, not violative of A1ticle 31(2}-After such compulsmy acquisi- tio11 of 'property', 1ight of holders of high denomination bank notes thereto stood extinguished and becanie non est-Hence, not violative of A1ticles 19(J)(f) & (g}-Sections 7 & 8 of the Act laid down elaborate procedure to obtain value of high denomination bank notes--Hence, holders of such bank notes not entitled to get <;ompensation for such compulsory acquisition-Con- stitution of India, I950, A1ticles 19(f) & (g) and 31(2). E High Denomination Bank Notes-Time and manner of exchange of--Held : not unreasonable or unjust havinlf regard to the purpose of the F Act--High Denomination Bank Notes-Door to door sale of donation tickets for cash by Trnst--Receipt of high denomination bank notes in the process-Anzount received kept in hand-Nantes of donors not disclosed-No satisfacto1y reasons given-Collection of funds by relief society-collection boxes not opened immediately after issue of High Denomination bank G notes-No satil;factory explanation given-RBI and Central Govemment refused claim for exchange of such bank notes bedmse claimants could not prove possession of such.bank notes on or before 16.1.1978-Held: findings by RBI and Central Govemment were findings of fact-Their satisfaction based on such facts was just and reasonable and not peiverse-Not liable to be illteifered with by Supreme Cmllt-Constitution of illdia, 1950, Article 32. H 443 444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A Administrative Law : B c D P1inciples of Natural Justice-Audi alteram pa1tem-High Denomi11a- tio11 Bank Notes-Payment of vaiue of exchange-Refusal by RBI and Central Govemment--Pre-decisional oppommity of heaiing to explain reason for late rnbmission of declaration fomzs-Not given to claimant-Howeve1; such oppommity given by appellate auth01ity before dismissing claimant's ap- peal-Detailed reasons also given by appellate authority for such dismiss- al-Held : even assuming that such opportunity of personal Iteming was imperative to comply with the 111/es of natural justice, the claimant could not raise any grievance on that score in view of post-decisional hea1ing and detailed reasons given by appellate auth01ity. The petitioner was the Chairman of a relief society which ran a. medical dispensary. The Executive Committee of the Society decided to construct a public charitable hospital. With that object in view the Execu- tive Committee decided to collect funds through donations and for that purpose donation boxes were kept at S and B. As per the Managing Committee's resolution these boxes were opened from time to time in presence of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Society and the amounts so collected were reco!'ded in separate minute books. E Immediately after the promulgation of the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1978, on January 16, 1978 instructions were given to the office bearers of the Society both at B and S not to accept any deposit or to allow anyone to deposit any high denomination bank notes in the collection boxes after midnight of January 16, 1978. For that purpose that boxes at S and B were taken possession of by the Society to F open the boxes. As regards the boxes at S they were opened on January 20, 1978 and found to contain Rs. 34, 76,000 in high denomination bank notes. The above sum of money along \\ith requisite declaration was deposited by the G petitioner in the Bank on January 23, 1978 along with a letter explaining the delay for failure to deposit the same within the presci:ibed time . • The petitioner-Society received an order of the Currency Officer of the Bank rejecting their claim for exchange of the high denomination bank notes received in S on the groun
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.