Regular First Appeal 2247 of 2007. Order dated 13 January 2022.
Sri.G.Ravi Shankar Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.K.Sachindra Karanth, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submit that they are not aware of the order dated 29.03.2021 since the same has not been uploaded on the website.
2. This Court being surprised at such a submission and on verifying the same from the website, found that the order dated 29.03.2021 has not been uploaded and it is mentioned as ‘adjourned’. It is only on cause list being received that they came to know of the alleged non- compliance with the earlier orders. They submit that when the order has not been uploaded on the website, there is no way that they could come to know of the order and as such, it cannot be said that there is non- compliance of the orders passed by this Court. They further submit that they normally depend on the website of the Court and do not apply for certified copies of the orders.
3. The Registrar General, Registrar (Judicial) and Registrar (Computers) are directed to instruct all concerned to upload the daily orders in all matters on the website without fail in a time bound manner, so that these kind of situations are avoided and the learned counsels are not denied an opportunity of knowing the orders passed by this Court in their respective matters which would also avoid unnecessary adjournments like that to be granted today.
4. Taking into consideration the above fact, the learned counsel are today informed that by order dated 29.03.2021, they had been directed to file their synopsis of dates and events, notes of arguments and list of authorities along with copies of authorities on or before 08.04.2021.
5. Accepting the submission of the counsels that they were not aware of the orders passed on 29.03.2021, the time to comply with the order dated 29.03.2021 which has been communicated to them today is extended by a period of four weeks and they are now directed to file their synopsis, dates of events, notes of arguments, list of authorities along with copies of authorities on or before 18.02.2022. Re-list on 3.03.2022.
The Anekal Taluk Court’s Principal Civil Judge Gokula K, Additional Civil Judges Ramprashanth MN and Santhosha Kumar Daivajna, with the help of Anekal Taluk Legal Services Authority, Anekal Advocates Association and Police officers have brought to life 400 year old lake (kalyani) in Anekal.
The lake was in bad shape and was almost sub-merged in dirt and mud. The team worked relentlessly for many months to clean the entire surrounding and to bring the lake to original status.
The Hon’ble Judges participated in the project restoration and worked along with the team. Photographs showing the lake rejuvenation are here.
B.V.Acharya, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General
The statement of CJI (Hon’ble Justice N.V. Ramana) that the “Judges appoint Judges” to the higher judiciary is not correct is an assertion which has not only the effect of creating a totally wrong impression in the minds of the public but also contradicting the statement of the President of India. In fact a suggestion that the present collegium system in which “ Judges appointing Judges” requires reforms was made by no less a person than the President of India Ram Nath Kovind in his valedictory address in “Constitution Day” celebration and this was in the presence of CJI. In the present Collegium system of appointment of judges, which is in vogue since 1993 when second Judges case was decided, it is the judges only who appoint judges. It does not mean that in the procedure followed, none is consulted or that the process does not involve any other persons views or recommendations.
The proposal will originate from Chief Justice of the High Court and the same will no doubt, pass through the Chief Minister, Governor and the Central Government (including Law Minister or the Prime Minister), but none of them have any say in the matter of final selection of the candidates. According to the decision of the Supreme Court in the second and third judges case, the final decision of the Collegium (consisting of three judges in the case of appointment to a High Court and five judges in the case of appointment to the Supreme Court) is binding not only the Central Government but also on the President of India in whose name the warrant of appointment is issued. Only right the Central Government has got is to refer the matter back to the Collegium for reconsideration of the decision, and if on such reconsideration, the Collegium reiterates the earlier decision, then there is no option left to the Government or the President, except to ultimately issue warrant of appointment as decided by the collegium. Only privilege the Central Government has is to delay the process which has been resorted to in some cases. In such a situation, is it not correct to say “Judges appoint Judges? “
Until 1993 when the second judges case was decided, it is the Central Government which had the ultimate power to appoint, without being obliged to follow the opinion of the CJI or other Judges of the Supreme Court consulted by it. The only obligation on the part of the Central Government was to consult the CJI. In second judges case, by misinterpreting the expression ‘consultation’, the Supreme Court held that in the context consultation actually means concurrence and in case of difference of opinion between CJI and Central Government, the opinion of the CJI will prevail, as according to it, he has primacy in the matter. The Supreme Court virtually usurped the ultimate power of the Central Government and vested the same in its collegium. Further the Supreme Court without any basis in the Constitution, introduced the system of Collegium of Supreme Court Judges which is conferred with the sole power to decide on the selection of judges. Thus the Collegium system had its birth, which many Jurists consider as not legitimate.
If the CJI is interested in solving the problem and having a fair and transparent system of selection of judges, he should constitute a Bench to over-rule the majority judgment in the NJAC case and uphold the validity of 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act which will replace the much maligned Collegium System.
The Karnataka High Court has today issued notice to Government of Karnataka and Congress party on a PIL seeking direction to the Govt not to permit/allow any political rallies, dharnas and protest and to restrain the Congress from holding and continuing the Padayatra with the theme “NAMMA NEERU NAMMA HAKKU” in any place in the State of Karnataka as per clause 14 of the notification RD.158 TNR 2020 dated 04.01.2022. Mr. Arvind Kamat, Senior Advocate argued the matter for the Petitioner.
Recent incident in the court of Chief Justice of Gujrat High Court has given raise to avoidable controversy. When a party-in-person before the Bench presided over by the Chief Justice insisted on addressing the court in Gujarathi only, the Chief Justice getting irritated responded by replying to him in Kannada. The Chief Justice appears to have reminded him that he was before the High Court (where English is the official language) and not District Court where local language, Gujarathi also can be used.
A litigant not knowing English is also entitled to have access to justice before a High Court. The Chief Justice could have avoided controversy either by transferring the case to some other Bench consisting of Judges knowing Gujrathi or by taking assistance of Brother Judge on his Bench to know the substance of the submission of the litigant concerned. The incident highlights the anomaly in the two policies – one encouraging local language in all courts, and the other transfer of High Court Judges from one State to another and Chief Justice, he being only from other State. Anyway there was no justification for the Chief Justice to get angry with a litigant who could speak only in local language.
Above incident again highlights the fact that the proposal tohave an All India Judicial Service on the model of IAS, in the present circumstances is totally impracticable. An IAS Officer on allotment to a particular State is expected to learn the local language which is the administration language also. Many such officers find it difficult to achieve required proficiency in the local language but some how they try to manage. But in the case of judicial service at the District level (a District Judge or Civil Judge) much higher degree of proficiency in the local language is required, as he is expected not only to translate the deposition of a witness in vernacular language to English but also writ lengthy judgments (which has now become order of the day led by the Supreme Court itself) in the local language.The State Governments are also conferring awards/prizes to Judicial Officers who write judgments in local language in preference to English.
Few days ago, Union Law Minister told the Lok Sabha that 13 High Courts have opposed the idea of All India Judicial Service and only two High Courts (Sikkim & Tripura) have favoured them. Of the State Governments, only two States were in favour while 13 have opposed it. The claim of the Government that such an All India Judicial Service will strengthen the overall judicial delivery system appears to be a myth. Unless and until we can have one uniform language for use in courts at all levels throughout the country, it is not practicable or feasible to establish an All India Judicial Service on the model of IAS. B. V. Acharya Senior Advocate
Naganna and others vs Muddamma. Original Suit 38 of 2017 decided on 1 August 2020. Judge Bharath Yogesh Karagudari. Court of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Pavagada .
The plaintiff professes that,he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property and the defendant is the owner of the Sy.No. Z6/1€ of Konanakurke village. Both the properties are the adjacent lands and the suit schedule property falls on the northern side of the defendant’s land. There are seven tamarind trees at the northern side of the defendants land. The branches of the said trees have spread over the land of the plaintiffs to the extent of 60ft to 70ft all along the border. Due to the above said tree branches it cast shadow over the land of the plaintiffs to the extent of one acer . Such being the case, the the plaintiffs are unable to grow any crops beneath the above said hanging branches. Therefore, the plaintiffs are incurring loss to the tune of Rs.40,000/- per year. Apart from this during the season the defendants unlawfully enter into the property of the plaintiffs with bullock cart and tractors to pluck the usfructs from the tamarind trees. Due to this act of the defendants the plaintiffs are put into sever damages to their land and crops. Furthermore, the plaintiffs submit that, they had made several attempts to resolve the dispute, but the defendants have not co-operated. Even they had lodged the complaint against the defendants. The effort to pacify the situation was futile as the defendant refused to act upon the terms. Even though the plaintiff is entitled for the usfurcts grown over his land, the defendants are enjoying the full benefits and income arising out of the said trees. the defendants, have no right over the suit schedule property and the branches stretched into his land. Hence, they cannot enter into the land of plaintiffs otherwise it amounts to violation of the plaintiff’s right. Hence, the plaintiff prays for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from entering into in the suit schedule property and award damages incurred by him.
Before looking into the ocular evidence and appreciation of evidence of the either side, it is necessary to understand the law and its position with regard to the branches of the tree hanging over the adjacent land. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held in Mannikkam Vs. Kamala 1P86KLT536-
Further the law on the question of the right of the owner of the land in respect of branches of trees overhanging over his soil is practically settled after the leading judgment of the House of Lords in Lemmon v. Mebb, (18P5) AC 1.
In Smith v. Giddy, (1Po4) fi KB 448, Kennedy, J. observed thus:—“If trees although projecting over the boundary are not in fact doing any damage, it may be that the plaintiff’s only right is to cut back the overhanging portions; but where they are actually doing damage. I think there must be a right of action. In such a case I do not think that the owner of the offending trees can compel the plaintiff to seek his remedy in cutting them.
In Davey v. Harrow Gorporation, (1P58) 1 QB 6o Lord Goddard, €.J., observed thus:— “…….where a tree encroaches on a neighbour’s land, whether by overhanging branches or by the penetration of roots, the adjoining owner can abate the nuisance by lopping the branches or grubbing up the roots. That the encroachment is not regarded as trespass, but as a nuisance, is well settled”.
Thus, in view of the above decisions it is settled law that, the owner of the tree does not have right over the branches hanging over the adjacent land. It is further stated that, hanging branches of the tree situated in the neighboring land amounts to nuisance. Therefore, the adjacent land owner has every right to claim a relief in accordance to the law. In other words the owner of the tree has no right over the branches hanging over the neighboring land and the neighboring land owner is entitled to avail relief accordingly at any point of time.
For the foregoing discussions and reasons stated therein suit of the plaintiff does succeed and deserves to be decreed. In the result I proceed to pass the following:
Shri. Sameer G Kolli, Principal Civil Judge, Davanagere
In the Court of the Principal Civil Judge at Davanagere. Shri. Sameer G Kolli, B.A.L., LL.B., Principal Civil Judge Original Suit 32/2012, decided on 1 December 2021 A. Basavarajappa vs Jasteen Desouza
Issue: Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant has prosecuted the plaintiff maliciously in C.C. 1539/2002 ?
9. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant herein had lodged an information against the plaintiff in Rural police station, Davangere. On the strength of said complaint, enquiry was held and later on ‘B’ Final Report was filed. The defendant herein contested ‘B’ Final Report by filing protest petition. Thereafter, cognizance was taken and process was issued. Later on, the court acquitted the plaintiff who was an accused in the said case. By reason of the said prosecution, the plaintiff has suffered physically, mentally and financially. Hence, this suit.
13. Learned counsel for the defendant has submitted during his arguments that the plaintiff who was accused No.3 in CC No. 1539/2002 was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and it is not a clear acquittal given by the court. He further submitted that PW1 has admitted in his cross examination with respect to earlier property dispute between defendant and himself and only because the complaint was filed, it cannot be termed to be a malicious prosecution. He further submitted that as there was merit in the complaint, the court took cognizance of the offences alleged against plaintiff and others and issued process. Thereafter, he submitted that when plaintiff is acquitted by assigning the reason of benefit of doubt, no malicious intent is made out. Thus, he has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
15. At the outset, the plaintiff in order to show that there was malicious prosecution by the defendant, has not produced any material on record except his self serving testimony. The main ingredients of malicious prosecution are stated thus:
a) the prosecution has been initiated by the defendant,
b) the prosecution was baseless without any reasonable cause,
c) the prosecution has been ended in his favour,
d) the defendant acted with malicious intent,
e) the plaintiff has suffered damage or injury.
16. It is to be noted that when a person with a malicious intention institutes wrongful criminal proceedings against someone without probable cause or reasonable ground, such proceeding is termed as malicious proceeding. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board V/s Dilip Kumar Ray, reported in AIR 2007 SC 976 has defined malicious prosecution as under:
“A judicial proceeding instituted by one person against another, from wrongful or improper motive and without probable cause to sustain it.”
19. At this juncture I would like to rely upon a decision of Hon’ble Privy Council in the case of Mohamed Amin V/s Jogendra Kumar Bannerjee and others reported in AIR(34) 1947 Privy Council 108, wherein it is held as under:
“In an action for damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove that, the proceedings initiated against him were malicious without reasonable probable cause, that they terminated in his favour and that he suffered loss. It is further held that mere presentation of a false complaint which first seeks to set that criminal law motion will not perse found in action for damages for malicious prosecution. If the magistrate dismisses the complaint as disclosing no offence with which he can deal, it may well be that there has been nothing but an unsuccessful attempt to set the criminal law in motion and no damages would be awarded to the plaintiff.”
22. Added to the above, it is also necessary to note that only because the accused persons were acquitted, that itself is not a ground to hold that the said prosecution was malicious in nature. Before parting with the discussion, I would like to note that the decision of the Hon’ble Privy Council discussed supra would clearly attract to the facts on hand. Though cognizance was taken and process was issued, that itself cannot be termed as malicious prosecution. Thus in view of my above discussion, this court is of well founded view that the plaintiff has utterly failed in proving that the defendant has maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff in CC No. 1539/2002.
Suit of the plaintiff being devoid of merit, fails and the same is hereby DISMISSED with cost.
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in FIR dated 28.02.2017 in Crime No.52 of 2017, notice dated 13.04.2017 issued under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and a letter dated 20.06.2017.
16. Admittedly, search and seizure is performed by the petitioners under the Act. The bar of divulging any information or any document taken into custody during the seizure is available under Section 138(2) of the Act. In the teeth of the said provision in the Act, the notice issued by the Police, on the face of it, would be contrary to law. The notice that the Police issued on 13.04.2017, is on the strength of the FIR for the alleged offences as aforesaid. Since the notice emanates pursuant to registration of the FIR, the registration of the FIR itself was bad in law, as recording of FIR against the petitioners, who are officers of Government and have performed certain acts of search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act, cannot be brought to prosecution particularly, for the offences alleged in the FIR. The complaint ought not to have been entertained by the 3rd respondent/Police and registration of FIR ought not to have been done in the light of the aforesaid provisions of the Act.
17. It is rather shocking that what the complainant wants in the complaint is, the diary and what the Police want to secure from the petitioners is the diary and no other document is required by the Police for investigation of the allegations of offences, which run into 15 in number, but only the diary. It cannot but be held that the 3rd respondent was acting at the behest of the complainant to secure the diary by invoking Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., thereby summoning the diary. Since the FIR could not have been registered against the petitioners in view of the specific bar under Section 293 of the Act, the aftermath of such registration would be rendered without authority of law.
18. The submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent / complainant is that, the writ petition is not maintainable as nobody is named in the FIR and challenging the said FIR by the petitioners in particular, would not be maintainable. If the act of registration of the FIR had stopped at that point, the submission of the learned senior counsel would become acceptable. The ulterior motive in registration of FIR is seen in the subsequent proceedings. Police Notice is issued under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. to the 1st petitioner wherein, it is indicated that Crime No.52 of 2017 is pending consideration. The second communication is issued on 20.06.2017, which again discloses offences punishable as aforesaid in Crime No.52 of 2017. Therefore, what the Police want to investigate is the act of search and seizure done by the petitioners, communication and police notice that are sent to the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be urged by the learned senior counsel that the FIR names nobody and the writ petition would not be maintainable. This submission deserves to be rejected and is rejected.
The FIR dated 28.02.2017, registered in Crime No.52 of 2017, before the 3rd respondent and all further proceedings taken up pursuant thereto stand quashed.
Before we begin to understand this, a more basic question we need to ask is: “what is money?”. Money, ultimately, is simply the tool that we use to exchange value. Throughout history we’ve used lots of things as money, from seashells, to precious metals, to salt… The most popular money, historically, has been gold. There’s good reason for this: gold works really well as money. It’s rare – so it’s not worthless, and it’s tangible so if you’re holding it in your hand it’s probably yours. And this worked for thousands of years, no matter what social institutions exist around you, no matter who the king or government is at that particular time.
Then came along a new invention: paper money. Paper money has some advantages and disadvantages. The biggest disadvantage is that paper is easy to counterfeit, something that’s practically impossible with gold.
Next came Digital Money as we all know. In fact, the vast majority of money these days are actually just numbers in computers. Banks use today is a “centralized” solution – they keep a ledger on their computer which keeps track of who owns what. Everyone has an account and this ledger keeps a tally for each account.
Bitcoin: Established in 2009 after the financial crash, Bitcoin is a worldwide cryptocurrency and digital payment system. It is called as the first decentralized digital currency. The system works without a central repository or single administrator. The word bitcoin first occurred and was defined in the whitepaper that was published on 31 October 2008. It is a compound of the words ‘bit’ and ‘coin’. The whitepaper frequently uses the shorter coin. It was invented by an unknown person or group of people under the name Satoshi Nakamoto. Satoshi Nakamoto claimed to be a man living in Japan, born on 5 April 1975. As of 24 May 2017, Nakamoto is believed to own up to roughly one million bitcoins, with a value estimated at approximately $9 billion USD as of November 2017. He also owns an estimated one million Bitcoin Cash coins as on 1 August 2017. The identity of Nakamoto remains unknown.
Bitcoins was released as an open source software. The transactions take place between users directly, without an intermediary. These transactions are verified by network nodes and recorded in a public distributed ledger called a blockchain. Bitcoin was creation as a reward for the process called as Mining. (Mining is a record-keeping service done through the use of computer processing power). Bitcoins are exchanged for other products and services globally. Bitcoins can also be used as investments.
In Bitcoin, the coins (or rather the transactions) are all recorded in a ledger. So far, nothing new. The big deal with Bitcoin is that this ledger is public and shared. Not only, it’s also maintained by the public. Thousands of people have a copy of this ledger around the world, and anyone can download and verify this ledger. In Bitcoin, instead of accounts, money is moved between addresses like email.
On 6 August 2010, a major vulnerability in the bitcoin protocol was spotted. Transactions were not properly verified before they were included in the blockchain, which let users bypass bitcoin’s economic restrictions and create an indefinite number of bitcoins
Commercial Use: Who accepts Bitcoin? Of course, businesses have started accepting it all around the world, some big names include Microsoft and TigerDirect and a whole bunch of airlines. There are websites to help you find Bitcoin-accepting businesses
Why Bitcoins?: Bitcoins can be used to buy merchandise anonymously. In addition, international payments are easy and cheap because bitcoins are not tied to any country or subject to regulation. Small businesses may like them because there are no credit card fees. Some people just buy bitcoins as an investment, hoping that they’ll go up in value. Bitcoins are stored in a “digital wallet,” which exists either in the cloud or on a user’s computer. The wallet is a kind of virtual bank account that allows users to send or receive bitcoins, pay for goods or save their money. Unlike bank accounts, bitcoin wallets are not insured.
User Anonymity: Bitcoin purchases are discrete. Unless a user voluntarily publishes his Bitcoin transactions, his purchases are never associated with his personal identity, much like cash-only purchases, and cannot be traced back to him. In fact, the anonymous Bitcoin address that is generated for user purchases changes with each transaction. Transactions are made with no middle men – meaning, no banks! There are no transaction fees and no need to give your real name. More merchants are beginning to accept them:
No Third-party Interruptions: One of the most widely publicized benefits of Bitcoin is that governments, banks and other financial intermediaries have no way to interrupt user transactions or place freezes on Bitcoin accounts. The system is purely peer-to-peer; users experience a greater degree of freedom than with national currencies.
Purchases Are Not Taxed: Since there is no way for third parties to identify, track or intercept transactions that are denominated in Bitcoins, one of the major advantages of Bitcoin is that sales taxes are not added onto any purchases.
Very Low Transaction Fees: Bitcoin transactions have no intermediary institutions or government involvement, the costs of transacting are kept very low. This can be a major advantage for travellers. Additionally, any transfer in Bitcoins happens very quickly, eliminating the inconvenience of typical authorization requirements and waiting periods. Bitcoin users can pay for their coins anywhere they have Internet access. This means that purchasers never have to travel to a bank or a store to buy a product.
No Paperwork: Anyone, from any country, of any age can accept Bitcoins within minutes. There is no ID card, passport or proof of address that all conventional banks required to open an account. All you need to do to start sending and receiving Bitcoins is to download a Bitcoin Wallet program and generate a Bitcoin Address.
Irreversible Transactions: Bitcoin is the only payment method that is 100% irreversible and cannot be charged back. Quick and Cheap Transactions: When making a Bitcoin transfer the fees are extremely low compared to conventional methods of moving money. Accepting credit cards will generally cost 3-5% of the transfer amount, which again is much more expensive than a Bitcoin transaction.
Payment service providers: Merchants accepting bitcoin ordinarily use the services of bitcoin payment service providers such as BitPay or Coinbase. When a customer pays in bitcoin, the payment service provider accepts the bitcoin on behalf of the merchant, converts it to the local currency, and sends the obtained amount to merchant’s bank account, charging a fee for the service.
Criticism: Bitcoin has been criticized for the vast amounts of electricity consumed by mining. It has been estimated that annual consumption (as of 2017) was 23 terawatt hours, approximately the same as the country of Ecuador. Bitcoin is also criticised because it has never shown has a source of stable value and its price has been highly volatile and it hasn’t yet established itself as a widely accepted transactions medium. It is also criticised for the lack of transaction reversals because there are pros and cons to the irreversible nature of bitcoin, but it should be pointed out that the possibility for refunds can be built on top of the base protocol. If someone wishes to pay an extra escrow fee to make sure that they can reverse a transaction after it has been sent, there is nothing stopping that platform from being built tomorrow.
Bitcoins are Ponzi Scheme because it is a dishonest top-down approach where founders promise investors that they’ll profit. The success of an investor in a Ponzi scheme comes at the expense of those who invest after them. In a Ponzi scheme early adopters rule the roost and it’s a zero-sum game for the majority who proceed them. Also, bitcoins can be hacked. Scandals: Bitstamp hacked. The world’s third largest bitcoin exchange amounting to 6% of all bitcoin transactions had to suspend its operations on January 5, 2015 after less than 19,000 bitcoins were stolen from operational bitcoin wallets were compromised resulting in a $5 million loss. The Slovenia based company reopened operations a week later with extra security processes in place. Similar incident was followed in February 2016 where there was a collapse of Mt Gox bitcoin exchange in Japan. The exchange folded after hackers allegedly breached its systems stealing about $450 million worth of bitcoins. The company filed for bankruptcy protection leading to investigators in both Japan and US to probe the incident.
Indian Ponzi Scandal: The case is centered around a new private startup called Webwork Trade Links, that launched in September last year, with the paid-up (cash for stock) capital of a relatively measly ₹1 lakh. Four months later, the company’s revenue had grown to ₹260 crores, entirely from investors’ money. The money came in after the founders of Webwork launched Addsbook.com in October. Investors were promised rich rewards for clicking on advertisements posted on the website. More pointedly, the founders of the website had collected ₹500 crore from 200,000 ‘investors’ over the same period. The accused founders reportedly purchased luxury automobiles, an Audi and a Mercedes Benz, for ₹2 crores. According to the Times of India, the company bought bitcoin worth ₹13 crores, for payments to those who saw their returns cut off.
Silk Route Founder Ross Ulbricht convicted: 31 year old Ross Ulbricht known by his online alias “Dread Pirate Roberts” and the man behind the now shut website Silk Road was convicted for his role in orchestrating a scheme that enabled around $200 million of anonymous online drug sales using bitcoins on the website. He was found guilty of charges including conspiracies to commit money laundering, computer hacking and drug trafficking. His appeal for a new trial was rejected by a federal judge in Manhattan this April.
Bitcoin Start-up Neo & Bee disappears: A promising new bitcoin start-up based in Cyprus which came up with the idea of serving as a kind bitcoin bank mysteriously went under in March last year, a month after its conception and highly publicised launch. Its 28-year-old British born CEO Danny Brewster was served an arrest warrant for suspicion of fraud and is allegedly on the run. Hong Kong’s Mycoin shuts shop: Hong Kong police arrested six people in connection with an alleged scheme by Mycoin investment company to defraud investors of at least HK$169 million ($21.8 million) after the bitcoin trading platform suddenly collapsed in February this year. According to a report by the South China Morning Post, the arrests followed after more than 50 clients claimed they were unable to withdraw funds from investment accounts. Another report said that under the alleged ponzi scheme, the victims were told that for every 90 bitcoins they bought through MyCoin, they would receive 219 a year later – more than double their return.
Current Status of Bitcoin: No one knows what will become of bitcoin. It is mostly unregulated, but that could change. Governments are concerned about taxation and their lack of control over the currency. The capital market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is planning to bring Initial Coin Offerings (ICO) under its existing legal framework. In recent times, popularity of crypto currencies has increased rapidly and number of entities looking at raising funds through ICO. Crypto currencies like bitcoin, ethereum and such offerings have been under government radar for long time. Even discussions were held between various regulatory bodies, including SEBI and Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to regulate crypto currencies. The RBI is of the view that these instruments are securities and so SEBI should be the regulating body. But these crypto-currencies are neither ‘commodities derivatives’ nor ‘securities’ under Securities contract.
The Union government has constituted a time-bound inter-disciplinary committee to come up with an action plan for dealing with virtual currencies so as to fix the regulatory gaps in the existing framework governing virtual currencies. Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has also cautioned the users, holders and traders of Virtual currencies about the potential financial, operational, legal and customer protection and security related risks through press releases in December 2013 and February 2017. The current value of Bitcoin is 6,17,390.58 Rupees for 1 Bitcoin
Daksha Legal 