Delhi high court to hear plea challenging limit on cash withdrawal

The petition claimed that setting a withdrawal limit on money deposited before 8 November was unconstitutional


Under the original notification issued by the centre, the weekly withdrawal limit from banks was Rs20,000 and the daily limit Rs10,000. The weekly limit was increased to Rs24,000 and the daily limit scrapped. Photo: Reuters
Under the original notification issued by the centre, the weekly withdrawal limit from banks was Rs20,000 and the daily limit Rs10,000. The weekly limit was increased to Rs24,000 and the daily limit scrapped. Photo: Reuters

New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Tuesday agreed to hear a plea challenging the withdrawal limit imposed on money deposited in banks, after the demonetisation of Rs500 and Rs1000 currency notes.

The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Jayant Nath, who agreed to hear the matter on Wednesday.

The public interest litigation was brought by Ashok Sharma, a businessman who sought quashing of a notification under which the centre capped the withdrawal limit of funds deposited in banks before 8 November.

The petition claimed that setting a withdrawal limit on money deposited before 8 November was unconstitutional. Amounts deposited before demonetisation have no connection with Rs500 and Rs1000 notes ceasing to be legal tender, the petition said.

Citing the difficulty and inconvenience faced by citizens, the petitioner contended that the withdrawal limit had disrupted the normal course of business for many people.

Under the original notification issued by the centre, the weekly withdrawal limit from banks was Rs20,000 and the daily limit Rs10,000. The weekly limit was increased to Rs24,000 and the daily limit scrapped.

Also Read: Delhi HC defers hearing plea against demonetisation as matter is pending in SC

Earlier in the day, G. Rohini, chief justice of the Delhi high court, deferred hearing a challenge brought against demonetisation of Rs500 and Rs1,000 banknotes, holding that the matter was already pending in the Supreme Court.

READ MORE