Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
The SC held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission lacks jurisdiction to interfere with banking operations, which is the exclusive statutory domain of the RBI. It cannot fix a maximum ceiling rate of interest for banks to charge credit card holders or direct banks to charge interest not exceeding 30% p.a., in absence of RBI instructions. Charging interest rates as per RBI circulars/notifications, independent of a standard ceiling, does not constitute an unfair trade practice. The terms of a contract between parties cannot be judicially scrutinized unless arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. The impugned judgment interfered with contractual terms and the RBI's regulatory powers, hence was set aside.
The SC held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission lacks jurisdiction to interfere with banking operations, which is the exclusive statutory domain of the RBI. It cannot fix a maximum ceiling rate of interest for banks to charge credit card holders or direct banks to charge interest not exceeding 30% p.a., in absence of RBI instructions. Charging interest rates as per RBI circulars/notifications, independent of a standard ceiling, does not constitute an unfair trade practice. The terms of a contract between parties cannot be judicially scrutinized unless arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. The impugned judgment interfered with contractual terms and the RBI's regulatory powers, hence was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
