<p class="title rtejustify">A company engaged in trading in crypto-currencies has challenged an RBI circular, prohibiting banks and financial institutions from providing services in relation to such virtual currencies, in the Delhi High Court.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">The plea was yesterday listed for hearing before Justice Rajiv Shakdher, who asked the high court registry to place it before the bench which is already hearing a similar matter.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">The petitioner company, Flintstone Technologies Private Limited, has sought the withdrawal of the April 6 circular of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), claiming that it is "arbitrary, unfair and unconstitutional".</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">The Maharashtra-based company has contended that the RBI circular has "fenced" all the entities regulated by the apex bank from providing services to any individual or business dealing in virtual currencies like crypto-currencies.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">The company, which claims to provide an online crypto-currency digital wallet service for Bitcoin and Money trade coin -- both virtual currencies -- has contended that the RBI has not spelt out any reasons for imposing the restrictions.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">It has also submitted that while the Centre is studying the effect of crypto-currencies without banning it completely, the RBI has come out with the circular to indirectly restrict the trade in virtual currencies.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">On April 22, the high court had sought the response of the Centre, the RBI and the GST Council on a Gujarat-based company's plea, challenging the April 6 circular.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">Gujarat-based Kali Digital Ecosystems Private Limited, which was proposing to undertake the business of operating a crypto-currency exchange system for the customers in India, has stated that it has already made substantial investments in this regard and that it plans to roll-out the exchange system, called "Coin Recoil", in August.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">However, due to the RBI circular, it would not be able to avail of the banking services to operate it, the petition filed by the company says.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">According to the circular, the entities regulated by the RBI are prohibited from "providing any service in relation to virtual currencies, including those of transfer or receipt of money in accounts relating to the purchase or sale of virtual currencies".</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">Three months' time has been given to those entities already providing such services.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">Crypto-currencies are a digital currency, in which encryption techniques are used to regulate the generation of units of currency and verify the transfer of funds, operating independently of a central bank.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">The company has claimed that a lack of regulations on crypto-currencies has "increased the uncertainty over the treatment of such transactions and is adversely affecting the proposed business of the petitioner".</p>
<p class="title rtejustify">A company engaged in trading in crypto-currencies has challenged an RBI circular, prohibiting banks and financial institutions from providing services in relation to such virtual currencies, in the Delhi High Court.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">The plea was yesterday listed for hearing before Justice Rajiv Shakdher, who asked the high court registry to place it before the bench which is already hearing a similar matter.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">The petitioner company, Flintstone Technologies Private Limited, has sought the withdrawal of the April 6 circular of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), claiming that it is "arbitrary, unfair and unconstitutional".</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">The Maharashtra-based company has contended that the RBI circular has "fenced" all the entities regulated by the apex bank from providing services to any individual or business dealing in virtual currencies like crypto-currencies.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">The company, which claims to provide an online crypto-currency digital wallet service for Bitcoin and Money trade coin -- both virtual currencies -- has contended that the RBI has not spelt out any reasons for imposing the restrictions.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">It has also submitted that while the Centre is studying the effect of crypto-currencies without banning it completely, the RBI has come out with the circular to indirectly restrict the trade in virtual currencies.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">On April 22, the high court had sought the response of the Centre, the RBI and the GST Council on a Gujarat-based company's plea, challenging the April 6 circular.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">Gujarat-based Kali Digital Ecosystems Private Limited, which was proposing to undertake the business of operating a crypto-currency exchange system for the customers in India, has stated that it has already made substantial investments in this regard and that it plans to roll-out the exchange system, called "Coin Recoil", in August.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">However, due to the RBI circular, it would not be able to avail of the banking services to operate it, the petition filed by the company says.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">According to the circular, the entities regulated by the RBI are prohibited from "providing any service in relation to virtual currencies, including those of transfer or receipt of money in accounts relating to the purchase or sale of virtual currencies".</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">Three months' time has been given to those entities already providing such services.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">Crypto-currencies are a digital currency, in which encryption techniques are used to regulate the generation of units of currency and verify the transfer of funds, operating independently of a central bank.</p>.<p class="bodytext rtejustify">The company has claimed that a lack of regulations on crypto-currencies has "increased the uncertainty over the treatment of such transactions and is adversely affecting the proposed business of the petitioner".</p>