Disposed¶63

Sri Nilkanth Pawar v. Union of India

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2025WP/14129/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Demonetised currency; Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, S.4; exchange/deposit of old specified bank notes during grace period; old notes returned by Court to litigant; Ministry of Finance notification dated 12.05.2017; twin requirements of serial-number recording by confiscating agency and returning Court; RBI Chennai endorsement dated 27.03.2017 refusing exchange of Rs.9,96,000/-; writ petition disposed of; liberty in W.A.No.200185/2024 (judgment dated 12.09.2024) held to enure to petitioner; Karnataka HC; Articles 226 and 227.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with the observation that the liberty granted by the Division Bench in W.A.No.200185/2024 shall enure to the petitioner's benefit; the impugned endorsement was upheld and no exchange of the old currency notes was directed. ¶63

Sri Nilkanth Pawar Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement dated 27.03.2017 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.3 refusing exchange of the petitioner's old currency notes can be interfered with in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the provision contained under S.4 of the Act, the impugned endorsement dated 27.03.2017 (Annexure-A) is just and proper and cannot be interfered with in this writ petition.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Considering that the petitioner secured the old notes from the competent Court, the liberty as granted by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.200185/2024 shall also enure to the benefit of the petitioner herein.

¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (E.S. Indiresh, J.), disposing of a writ petition under Articles 226/227 challenging the endorsement dated 27.03.2017 of respondent No.3 (RBI, Chennai) which refused, invoking S.4 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, to exchange old demonetised currency notes totalling Rs.9,96,000/- that the petitioner had secured from the custody of the competent Court at Belur by order dated 25.03.2017. The Court held the impugned endorsement just and proper and not open to interference. However, placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.200185/2024 dated 12.09.2024 (which, in terms of the Ministry of Finance notification dated 12.05.2017, laid down twin requirements - recording of the serial numbers of the confiscated specified bank notes by the law enforcement agency and mention of those serial numbers in the Court's direction while returning the notes to a litigant - and reserved liberty to approach the returning Court for a fresh order), the Single Judge held that the liberty so granted shall also enure to the benefit of this petitioner; the writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47245 WP No. 14129 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.14129 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. NILKANTH PAWAR S/O.BHIMSINGH, AGED 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.7/215, BHUMIPRUSH MUTT, KANCONA, SOUTH GOA-403702.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. DILIP KUMAR L., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANGAMESH R.B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICE (LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT) NEW DELHI. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

CENTRAL BOARD

¶16

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, SECRETARIES DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, 16^TH FLOOR, SHAHID BHAGAT SING MARG, MUMBAI-400001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:47245 WP No. 14129 of 2017

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NIRGAM VIBHAG, FORT GLOSIS, 16, RAJAJI SALAI, P.O.NO.5060, CHENNAI-600001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. HARSHA P. BANAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R4; SRI. R.V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO ACCEPT THE OLD CURRENCY NOTES IN TOTAL SUM OF RS.9,96,000/- (AS MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE HEREUNDER), TO EXCHANGE THE SAME WITH NEW CURRENCY NOTES OF EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OR TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO DEPOSIT THE SAID EQUIVALENT AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.3.2017 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER AND TO TAKE STEPS TO AMEND THE SBN ACT 2017 SO AS TO INCLUDE CERTAIN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED FOR EXCHANGE OF OLD CURRENCY NOTES, DURING THE GRACE PERIOD PROVIDED UNDER THE SAID ACT.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:47245 WP No. 14129 of 2017

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the endorsement dated 27.03.2017 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A, inter alia, sought for a direction to the respondent No.3 to accept the old currency notes totalling to Rs.9,96,000/- and in exchange, issue new currency notes of equivalent amount.

¶31

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶32

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner secured old notes from the custody of the Court by virtue of an order passed by the competent Court at Belur on 25.03.2017 and thereafter, the petitioner has approached the respondent No.3 on 27.03.2017 and requested to exchange the old currency notes with new currency notes, however the same was refused under S.4 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of liabilities) Act, 2017

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:47245 WP No. 14129 of 2017

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Hence, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

¶37

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the aforesaid Act was enacted by providing grace period for exchange of certain specified bank notes, in accordance with law. It is further contended that, S.4 of the Act provides for exchange / deposit of specific bank notes to certain class of persons notified by the Central Government Notification, however, the petitioner has not been exempted under the said provision and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶38

5 In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of writ papers would indicate that the Act, 2017 provides for grace period in which the bank notes have to be deposited for replacement with new currency notes of specified old bank notes.

¶39

6. In this regard, it is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner was able to get the old notes on account of the order passed by the competent Court. In that view of the matter,

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:47245 WP No. 14129 of 2017

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

taking into consideration the provision contained under S.4 of the Act, I am of the view that, the impugned endorsement dated 27.03.2017 (Annexure-A) is just and proper and it cannot be interfered with in this writ petition. However, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.200185/2024, by Judgment dated 12.09.2024 under similar circumstances, at para Nos.7 to 12 has held as follows:

¶44

" 7. It is clear that in case confiscation of specified Bank notes by the investigating agencies and same is deposited by the Court, and once the same are returned by the Court to a person, who is the party in the case pending/decided before that Court, such person who is in receipt of the Bank notes may on production of direction of the Court, seek for exchange of such specified Bank notes. However, twin obligations required for the purpose of getting the benefit of the notification of 12.05.2017 are:

¶45

(i) That the law enforcement agency which confiscate the notes and/or produces them before the Court must mention the serial number of the specified Bank notes that have been confiscated and/or produced before the Court.

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47245 WP No. 14129 of 2017

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

(ii) The direction of the Court referred to in the notification which would enable the litigant to make request for exchange of notes should mention the serial numbers of the Bank of the specified Bank notes seized by the Law Enforcement Agency in the direction of the Court while the Court permits returning of that amount to the person, who is a party in the case pending before that Court.

¶49

8. Such of the directions referred to above may be taken note of by the investigating agencies and the Courts concerned so as to enable the parties to the litigation to obtain exchange of the amount of the demonetized currency with legal tender in terms of the notification of the Ministry of Finance dated 12.05.2017. Unless there is adherence to the requirements of the notification strictly, parties to the litigation would be prejudiced irreparably without any lapse on their part. Accordingly, the investigating agencies and the Courts are to adhere to the requirements of the notification dated 12.05.2017 strictly.

¶50

9. In the present case, the proceedings in the course of which the currency was seized was quashed and the Trial Court was directed to consider release of the seized properties. The Trial Court though has ordered for release of the demonetized currency, it is admitted that

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:47245 WP No. 14129 of 2017

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

the order is not in accordance with the circular of the Ministry of Finance as referred to above.

¶55

10.Considering the tenor of the Government notification of May, 2017, the petitioner is bound to find it difficult to obtain the relief at the hands of the Union of India, even if direction is passed to the Union of India to consider the representations, which were directed to be considered by the Reserve Bank of India. Accordingly, to ensure that the relief afforded by the learned Single Judge is effective and taking note of the notification and requirement of the notification dated 12.05.2017, it would be appropriate to reserve liberty to the petitioner to approach the same Court that has returned the demonetized currency that was seized in the proceedings, with a request to pass a fresh order taking note of the requirements of the notification of Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, dated 12.05.2017 in the light of the observations made above. Directions are passed to enable the petitioner to rely on the directions passed by the Court and seek for appropriate relief in terms of the notification of 12.05.2017.

¶56

11. After the petitioner avails such liberty and obtains order of the Court, copy of such order passed may then be submitted to the Union of India along with the fresh representation and the same may be taken note of by the Union of India and appropriate directions passed and steps taken.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:47245 WP No. 14129 of 2017

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

12. It is also further clarified that in the light of the lapse of time, it is made clear that the fresh representation given by the petitioner would be treated to be a continuation of the earlier representations made to the Reserve Bank of India which is now to be disposed off by the Government of India so that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner.

¶60

Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed off."

¶61

7. I n that view of the matter, considering the grievance of

¶62

the petitioner that the petitioner has secured old notes from the competent Court, I am of the view that, liberty as granted by this Court in the aforesaid appeal, shall also enure to the benefit of the petitioner herein.

¶63

Accordingly, with the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶64

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶65

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri Nilkanth Pawar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nilkanth Pawar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Naresh Kumar Vs Hbd Financial Services Limited

Sri Sujaya Poojary Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Srinath Chowdappa Vs the Director of Frro

Sri M a Abdul Reheman Vs the Tahasildar

Kansa Properties LLP Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Jayadev Motors Vs the Authorised Officer