<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (10) TMI 508 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428950</link>
    <description>A payment aggregator was held to fall within the statutory concept of a payment system under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, so RBI could insist on authorisation for its operation. The Court also upheld the Clause 4 minimum net worth requirement in the 2020 Guidelines, treating it as a rational eligibility measure linked to financial soundness, customer protection, and operational viability rather than arbitrary classification. Clause 8 on maintaining collected funds in an escrow account was likewise sustained as consistent with the Act&#039;s express power to require separate accounts and protect beneficiary funds. The guidelines were upheld in substance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2022 21:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=693288" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 508 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428950</link>
      <description>A payment aggregator was held to fall within the statutory concept of a payment system under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, so RBI could insist on authorisation for its operation. The Court also upheld the Clause 4 minimum net worth requirement in the 2020 Guidelines, treating it as a rational eligibility measure linked to financial soundness, customer protection, and operational viability rather than arbitrary classification. Clause 8 on maintaining collected funds in an escrow account was likewise sustained as consistent with the Act&#039;s express power to require separate accounts and protect beneficiary funds. The guidelines were upheld in substance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>