India: The Legal Perplexity Of Cryptocurrencies As Payment For Damages

Introduction

In the rapidly evolving landscape of technology and commerce, the legal fraternity across the globe is grappling with the integration of cryptocurrencies within the existing frameworks of law. The journey of virtual assets through the legal and regulatory halls has been one of cautious advancement and retrospective reflection. Initially met with bans in India¹ and several other countries, the ascent of virtual currencies was hindered by concerns of volatility and their potential misuse for illicit activities such as money laundering and financing of terrorism. However, as the regulatory landscape evolved, bans were lifted, and many nations began to pivot towards an approach that balanced risk mitigation with the growth of digital finance. This shift was underpinned by a commitment to global Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) standards, often necessitating that entities dealing in virtual assets register with relevant authorities to foster transparency and legal compliance.²

At the forefront of shaping these standards is the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an entity dedicated to establishing global regulatory harmony for money laundering and terrorist financing. FATF defines virtual assets as any digital representation of value that can be traded or used for payment, distinct from fiat currencies.³ As the commercial application of virtual assets widens, they attract not only the attention of AML and CFT watchdogs but also spotlight other legal challenges that command global focus. These challenges manifest across a spectrum of legal disputes, ranging from investment disputes to intellectual property issues. This surge in the utilization of cryptocurrencies brings about new legal use cases and liabilities, thus necessitating the adaptation of existing legal knowledge to the novel demands of this rapidly evolving domain.

As the Indian legal system has not yet fully addressed the nature of cryptocurrencies, an examination of the status of these digital assets in the context of Indian law is both timely and essential. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 ("Contract Act") establishes that for an agreement to be considered a contract, it must have lawful consideration.⁴ Lawfulness of consideration, as per Section 23 of the Contract Act, requires that it not be forbidden by law, nor should it defeat the provisions of any law. While cryptocurrencies do not fall into the categories of being fraudulent, injurious, immoral, or opposed to public policy, their status under Indian law hinges on whether they are forbidden by law or defeat the purpose of any law.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of 'law' in Udhoo Dass v. Prem Prakash and Anr⁵ provides that only enacted legislation constitutes 'law' in this context, suggesting that in the absence of any enacted law specifically addressing cryptocurrencies, they remain lawful for consideration—at least until legislation states otherwise. This introduces a critical query: Can cryptocurrencies, which presently operate in a legal grey area in India, be recognized as lawful consideration for the settlement of damages or compensation in court cases or arbitral proceedings? This question gains complexity when viewed against the backdrop of international jurisprudence, where foreign courts have begun to recognize cryptocurrencies as property, goods, or even currency in their own right, as seen in cases such as AA v Persons Unknown and Ion Science and Duncan Johns v Persons Unknown.

The international legal community's approach towards cryptocurrencies—whether as property in AA v Persons Unknown, or as a means for satisfying third-party debt orders in Ion Science and Duncan Johns v Persons Unknown —presents a contrast to the tentative stance taken by Indian authorities. This dichotomy sets the stage for a discourse on the nature of cryptocurrencies in the Indian legal context and begs the question: Given the multifaceted nature of cryptocurrencies, as both an asset class and a medium of exchange, is there room for cryptocurrencies to be recognized as a form of legal tender, goods, property, or a valid form of consideration under Indian law?

As we delve into the legal intricacies and analyze the precedents set by foreign jurisdictions, we must explore whether the Indian legal system is prepared to accommodate the unique nature of cryptocurrencies. This article seeks to evaluate the possibility of use of cryptocurrency in the payment of damages or compensation within the Indian judicial framework.

Judicial Approaches to Crypto as Property and Debt

English courts have recently set significant precedents by recognizing cryptocurrencies as legitimate forms of property, allowing for traditional legal remedies to be applied to digital assets. This includes enabling the enforcement of money judgments and the acknowledgment of exchanges as constructive trustees in cases of cyber fraud. Such rulings underscore the necessity for robust regulatory frameworks to address the complexities and risks associated with the burgeoning prominence of cryptocurrencies. Some of the cases adjudicated by the English courts on the issue are as follows:

a. AA v Persons Unknown: Recognizing Cryptocurrencies as Legitimate Property:

In the case of AA v Persons Unknown,⁶ a sequence of events unfolded with a cyberattack targeting a Canadian insurance company. The hackers, in their ransom demand, specified 109.25 Bitcoins (equivalent to USD 950,000) for the release of decryption software. Yielding to the demand, the insurance company, covered by an English insurer, made the ransom payment. Subsequent investigations by consultants successfully traced the Bitcoin payments to an account on the Bitfinex exchange.

At this juncture, the insurer sought to recover the remaining 96 Bitcoins and, therefore, applied for a proprietary injunction. In a momentous decision, the court acknowledged the prima facie challenge in categorizing Bitcoin as property due to its intangible and virtual nature. Adopting the analytical framework presented by the UK Jurisdictional Task Force⁷, the court emphasized that a crypto asset need not conform to traditional definitions of 'things in possession' or 'things in action' to be considered property.

Applying the criteria established in National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth⁸ and aligning with the precedent set by B2C2 v Quoine⁹, the court conclusively affirmed that Bitcoin met the criteria for property, consequently granting the proprietary injunction. This landmark decision signifies the English Courts' readiness to acknowledge established and tradeable cryptocurrencies as legitimate forms of property, offering newfound certainty to participants in the crypto asset landscape.

Interestingly, a similar deliberation occurred in the High Court of Singapore, where the court contemplated the nature of USDT. The court noted, "this feature of USDT may constitute an additional thing in action that the holder of a USDT may have, but its presence is not necessary to my conclusion that the right represented by the USDT is itself a thing in action."¹⁰ This parallel consideration underscores the global legal discourse surrounding the recognition of virtual assets and their evolving legal status.

b. Ion Science and Duncan Johns v Persons Unknown: Pioneering Third-Party Debt Order (TPDO) in Cryptocurrency:

In Ion Science and Duncan Johns v Persons Unknown¹¹ issued the first-ever third-party debt order (TPDO) specifically related to cryptocurrency. The third-party debt order, a mechanism for enforcing money judgments, empowers the recovery of sums owed to a judgment debtor that are held by a third party—an enforcement avenue previously known as garnishee orders.

In this case, the first claimant was defrauded of a substantial amount of Bitcoin in 2020, prompting legal action. The claimants were granted a proprietary injunction, a freezing injunction, and disclosure orders against several cryptocurrency exchanges, including Binance Holdings and Payward Ltd, which is affiliated with Kraken Exchange. The orders resulted in the identification of Mirriam Corp LP as the entity controlling the account used for the fraudulent transactions, which contained both cash and cryptocurrency. Mirriam Corp did not engage with the legal proceedings and was subsequently judged to owe the claimants £2,935,204.30.

The High Court then issued an interim third-party debt order against Payward, which held funds belonging to Mirriam Corp, effectively allowing the claimants to intercept the debt owed by Payward to satisfy the judgment against Mirriam Corp. Despite Mirriam Corp's absence of response, the High Court finalized the third-party debt order, confirming that the claimants were entitled to the funds to recoup their losses from the fraud.

This significant legal milestone unfolded against the backdrop of allegations involving crypto-related fraud, representing a pivotal stride in acknowledging crypto assets as traceable and enforceable subject to legal remedies akin to traditional asset classes. The decision builds upon the precedent set by AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm), where the court established Bitcoin's classification as property susceptible to a freezing order.

The acknowledgment of crypto assets in court proceedings mirrors their escalating popularity and growing significance. Courts, cognizant of the evolving landscape of crypto-related litigation, are adapting to the complexities posed by the application of traditional legal principles to digital environments. Despite the burgeoning prominence of crypto assets, regulatory oversight remains constrained. The courts' acknowledgment of this "new'' class of assets underscores the pressing need for more robust governance frameworks to safeguard consumers against potential malfeasance and misconduct in the evolving landscape of digital assets.

c. Jones v Persons Unknown: Acknowledging Constructive Trust in Cyber Fraud Recovery

In the matter of Jones v Persons Unknown,¹² a victim of cyber fraud sought recovery of approximately 89.6 bitcoins (equivalent to £1.5 million) from fraudsters operating a crypto investment platform. The court granted summary judgment against the fraudsters, recognizing Huobi as a constructive trustee, underscoring the evolving legal landscape surrounding virtual assets.

The court further permitted the orders to be served on the defendants out of jurisdiction, utilizing alternative methods including an NFT airdrop, to ensure rapid notification. This innovative approach to service reflects rule changes that eliminate the need for court permission to serve documents out of jurisdiction if the claim form was already served with permission or did not require it. The claimant, who had transferred approximately 89.6 Bitcoin to a fraudulent trading platform, had previously secured worldwide freezing and proprietary injunctions against the defendants, who were categorized as "persons unknown" and included the exchange, Huobi. The defendants did not engage with the litigation, and the claimant was awarded a judgment for deceit and unjust enrichment, with the court upholding the claimant's ownership of the stolen property and continuing the interim injunctions on a final basis.

Enforcing Cryptocurrency Payments in Global Courts

The legal landscape surrounding damages paid in virtual assets is witnessing a notable trend across various jurisdictions, where courts are increasingly issuing directives for parties to compensate damages using digital currencies. Two pivotal cases, Diamond Fortress Technologies, Inc. v. EverID, Inc. in Delaware and a dispute over a Dash cryptocurrency investment in the Dubai Primary Court, shed light on the nuanced approach taken by adjudicating authorities.

a. Diamond Fortress Technologies, Inc. v. EverID, Inc.: A Meticulous Calculation

In the case of Diamond Fortress Technologies Inc. v. EverID Inc.¹³, the Delaware Superior Court faced the complex task of quantifying damages in cryptocurrency, a realm known for its volatility and lack of established valuation methods. The plaintiffs, Diamond Fortress and its CEO Charles Hatcher, had entered into agreements with EverID, which subsequently breached these contracts by failing to distribute the agreed-upon ID Tokens following an ICO. The key issue before the court was how to calculate damages when the contract consideration was in cryptocurrency.

The court's nuanced approach began with classifying the cryptocurrency as a security under the Securities Act of 1933, guided by the Howey test. This classification was crucial because it shaped the methodology for determining damages. The court then faced the challenge of valuating the cryptocurrency. To establish a reliable valuation, the court turned to CoinMarketCap, a recognized source that provided a historical USD value for the ID Tokens.

For calculating the damages, the court adopted the New York Rule, which determines the "highest value within a reasonable time after the breach" to compensate the plaintiff, thereby placing them in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. In this case, the court considered a three-month period reasonable for the plaintiffs to have replaced the asset in the open market. Consequently, damages were awarded based on the highest value of the ID Tokens during this period, resulting in $20,100,000 for Diamond Fortress and $5,025,000 for Mr. Hatcher, inclusive of pre- and post-judgment interest.

This decision is a prime example of the courts' efforts to adapt traditional legal principles to modern, digital contexts. It highlights the importance of clear contract language regarding the valuation and breach remedies related to cryptocurrency transactions. Given the significant variance in cryptocurrency values, the case emphasizes the potential impact of the timing of valuation and the chosen valuation method on the outcome of damages awarded. This ruling could serve as a reference for future cases involving digital assets, underlining the evolving interplay between technology and law.

b. Dash Cryptocurrency Dispute in Dubai¹⁴: Pioneering Compensation in Cryptocurrency

The Dubai Primary Court's ruling to award compensation in the form of cryptocurrency, instead of a fiat currency, marks a significant development in the legal treatment of digital assets. In the case at hand, the plaintiff's demand for the return of an investment in Dash cryptocurrency, along with a weekly investment return, was met with an unprecedented court decision that mandated the return of the exact amount of cryptocurrency originally invested, not the monetary equivalent thereof.

The court's decision was grounded in the Federal Commercial Transactions Law of the UAE, with particular emphasis on Articles 76, 77, 88, and 90, which govern the rights of creditors to claim interest on debts arising from commercial transactions when the debtor defaults on payment. Significantly, the court interpreted these provisions to apply to debts of a known sum of money at the time the obligation arises. However, in this case, the lack of a specified interest rate in the contract and the absence of a reference website for calculating the unit price of the cryptocurrency at issue meant that the monetary value of the Dash could not be accurately determined due to its daily fluctuation in the market.

Consequently, the court bypassed the challenge of pinning down a fluctuating value and instead ordered the direct return of the cryptocurrency to the plaintiff's electronic wallet. This approach not only addresses the issue of cryptocurrency's volatile valuation but also indicates a legal recognition of the unique nature of digital assets. It suggests that when dealing with cryptocurrency transactions, parties should clearly specify in their contracts how the value of the cryptocurrency will be determined, potentially referencing specific valuation tools or websites.

Moreover, the judgment carries strategic implications for future litigants in the digital asset space. For those seeking compensation, there is now a precedent to claim restitution in kind—in cryptocurrency—especially if they anticipate an increase in its value. This could potentially provide an advantage during the time-consuming processes of appeal and enforcement, as the value of the cryptocurrency could appreciate, unlike a fixed fiat currency amount determined at the time of the initial judgment.

This case underscores the need for explicit methodologies in cryptocurrency contracts to anticipate and mitigate the complexities of digital asset valuation in legal disputes. It also highlights the evolving legal frameworks responding to the increased prominence and complexity of virtual currencies, reflecting the global shifts in regulatory stance towards these emerging assets. The decision demonstrates a progressive legal acknowledgment of cryptocurrencies and sets a noteworthy precedent for compensating in digital assets within the UAE and potentially beyond.

c. Gao vs Yunsilu Fund and Anr¹⁵: Refusal to enforce arbitral award on public policy ground

The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court's decision to annul an arbitration award that compensated in US dollars for a cryptocurrency dispute is a significant reflection of China's regulatory environment regarding virtual currencies. The court based its judgment on national policies that delineate a clear distinction between cryptocurrencies and fiat currencies, emphasizing that cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, do not share the same legal status as fiat currency and should not participate in the market as such.

In this case, the arbitration tribunal initially ruled in favor of the claimants, ordering the respondent to pay an amount in US dollars equivalent to the value of the cryptocurrency at the time of the breach. However, upon review, the court found this to be contrary to the public interest, as it indirectly facilitated the trading and redemption of Bitcoin for fiat currency, which is expressly prohibited by Chinese financial regulations.

The court's ruling underscores the difficulties of enforcing crypto-related arbitral awards in jurisdictions with strict cryptocurrency regulations. While Chinese courts have recognized Bitcoin as a "virtual commodity" or "virtual asset," the judgment reinforces the prohibition of its exchange with fiat currencies. This sets a precedent that claimants in crypto-related arbitrations should request relief in the same form of cryptocurrency to avoid enforcement uncertainties, especially within Mainland China where trade and exchange of cryptocurrencies are rigorously controlled.

Courts across various jurisdictions are establishing diverse precedents in cryptocurrency disputes. The Delaware Superior Court pragmatically awarded damages based on cryptocurrency's market value, while the Dubai Primary Court innovatively mandated the return of the actual cryptocurrency. Conversely, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in China set aside an award for being contrary to public interest, reflecting China's strict stance against the trading of cryptocurrency as a currency. These contrasting decisions underscore the disparate legal approaches to digital assets globally, influenced by local regulations and the evolving nature of cryptocurrency within the judicial system.

Conundrum of classification

The intricate debate on the classification of cryptocurrency as a security, commodity, currency, legal tender, or store of value poses significant challenges in determining its suitability for the payment of damages. The uncertainty in defining cryptocurrency's legal and economic status is illustrated by the divergent approaches taken by businesses and regulatory frameworks worldwide. In India, while some businesses have begun accepting Bitcoin as a form of payment, the absence of explicit legal recognition and a definitive regulatory stance by regulatory bodies like the Reserve Bank of India and the Securities and Exchange Board of India leaves its status uncertain.

The existing Indian legislations, including the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 ("RBI Act"), Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ("FEMA"), the Coinage Act, 2011 ("Coinage Act"), and the Payments and Settlement Act, 2007 ("PSSA"), provide a legal structure for what constitutes currency and legal tender but do not adequately encapsulate the complex nature of cryptocurrencies. The fluctuating value, the speculative nature, and the multifaceted use-cases of cryptocurrencies—from being an investment vehicle to a medium of exchange—complicate their treatment under the current legal regime. The ambiguity arises from the inherent characteristics of cryptocurrencies that cause them to straddle the definitions of several established asset categories.

Under the FEMA, "currency" encompasses a wide array of traditional financial instruments, including notes, postal orders, money orders, checks, drafts, traveler's checks, letters of credit, bills of exchange, promissory notes, and credit cards or such other similar instruments, as may be notified by the Reserve Bank.¹⁶ Cryptocurrencies do not neatly fit into these categories because they exist as digital tokens and do not have a physical form like most listed instruments, nor are they issued or regulated by a central authority.

The RBI Act, and the Coinage Act, provide the statutory framework for what constitutes legal tender in India. Legal tender, as defined, includes banknotes¹⁷ and coins¹⁸ issued by the RBI and the government, respectively. This definition is rooted in the traditional notion of money as a government-backed medium that is accepted as payment for goods and services within a country's borders. Cryptocurrencies, however, function on a decentralized network and are not issued by any central authority, which means they do not qualify as legal tender under these acts.

The PSSA, governs the payment systems relating to electronic funds. Although it does not explicitly define "digital" or "virtual" currency, it does delineate what constitutes a payment system, and certain aspects of cryptocurrency transactions could be interpreted as falling under this definition.¹⁹ However, the PSSA is built around systems that involve the settlement of payment obligations and typically require the oversight of a regulatory body, which is not how cryptocurrencies operate due to their decentralized and peer-to-peer nature.

The Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956 (SCRA), provides an inclusive definition of securities, which can be interpreted to include instruments akin to cryptocurrencies if they are freely transferable and capable of being sold.²⁰ However, the application of this act to cryptocurrencies is complicated by the fact that most tokens do not represent an ownership interest in a company or a claim to a stream of income, which are typical characteristics of securities.

The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (SG Act) defines goods means every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money; and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale.²¹ While cryptocurrency could potentially be considered movable property, the exclusion of money from the definition of goods suggests that if cryptocurrencies were deemed to be used as money, they might not be considered goods under SG Act.²²

These varying statutory definitions highlight the conflict in classifying cryptocurrencies. On one hand, they function as a medium of exchange, similar to currency, but lack the legal tender status. On the other hand, they exhibit properties akin to securities or commodities in terms of being tradable financial assets, but they do not fit neatly within the traditional frameworks that govern these instruments. This discordance among definitions across different statutes creates uncertainty regarding the legal status of cryptocurrencies and complicates their use as payment for damages without a more tailored and coherent legal framework.

Consequently, the lack of clear classification renders the use of cryptocurrency for the payment of damages problematic. Without a consensus on its characterization, and in the absence of legal provisions for its valuation and conversion, courts face a considerable challenge in awarding damages in cryptocurrency or determining its equivalent in fiat currency. The ambiguity surrounding its legal definition directly impacts the enforceability of such damages, suggesting that until there is definitive legislation, cryptocurrencies will remain a contentious and unsettled medium for the resolution of claims in India and globally.

Conclusion: Balancing Recognition and Guidelines

In conclusion, the journey of cryptocurrency through legal systems worldwide is marked by significant strides and substantial stumbling blocks. As illustrated by precedent-setting cases in various jurisdictions, courts are grappling with the application of traditional legal principles to the novel context of digital assets. From recognizing cryptocurrencies as property to enforcing damages in virtual currencies, the legal landscape is evolving to accommodate these digital assets, albeit not without challenges. The pivotal decisions from the English courts and the groundbreaking directives from the Dubai Primary Court reflect a growing recognition and acceptance of cryptocurrencies in judicial processes.

However, this trend is not universal, as seen in the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court's rejection of an arbitral award based on public policy grounds, underscoring the contentious nature of cryptocurrency regulation. In India, the absence of explicit legal recognition and clear regulatory guidance leaves cryptocurrencies in a grey area, especially when considering them as lawful consideration for the settlement of damages or compensation.

The disparate legal approaches underscore the urgent need for a harmonized regulatory framework that acknowledges the unique nature of cryptocurrencies while addressing their volatility and potential for misuse. As the article reveals, the pressing question remains: Can cryptocurrencies carve out a space within the legal tender, commodity, and property classifications, or will they forge a new category altogether? The answer lies in the balance between innovation and regulation, a balance that legal systems around the world must strive to achieve as they navigate the uncharted waters of digital currencies.

We extend our heartfelt gratitude to the Aakarshi Jain (Intern at Coinque Consulting) for her invaluable contributions to this article.

Footnotes

1 Prohibition on dealing in Virtual Currencies (VCs) (Notification), RBI/2017-18/154 DBR.No.BP.BC.104 /08.13.102/2017-18, available at https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=11243, accessed 21 January 2024

2 Government vide Gazette notification No. S.O. 1072(E), dated 07.03.2023 has notified activities involving virtual digital assets under sub-clause (vi) of clause (sa) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. See also Preventing Money Laundering In The Digital Age: India's Approach To Virtual Digital Assets, available at https://www.mondaq.com/india/money-laundering/1384882/preventing-money-laundering-in-the-digital-age-indias-approach-to-virtual-digital-assets#_edn16 , accessed 23 January 2024

3 Virtual Assets, Financial Action Task Force, available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/topics/virtual-assets.html#:~:text=Virtual%20assets%20(crypto%20assets)%20refer,many%20potential%20benefits%20and%20dangers. , accessed 23 January 2024

4 Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 2 (d) - When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise;

5 AIR 1964 ALL 1

6 [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm), English High Court (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/AA-v-Persons-Unknown-summary-case-note-SB-amended-1.pdf), accessed 22 January 2024

7 Legal statement on cryptoassets and smartcontracts UK Jurisdiction Taskforce, November 2019, available at https://www.blockchain4europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/6.6056_JO_Cryptocurrencies_Statement_FINAL_WEB_111119-1.pdf, accessed 22 January 2024

8 [1965] 1 AC 1175 available at https://www.scribd.com/document/356444577/National-Provincial-Bank-v-Ainsworth, accessed 24 January 2024

9 [2019] SGHC(I) 03, available at https://www.sicc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/modules-document/judgments/b2c2-ltd-v-quoine-pte-ltd.pdf; See also Quoine Pte Ltd vs B2C2 Ltd [2020] SGCA(I) 02 available at https://www.sicc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/modules-document/judgments/quoine-pte-ltd-v-b2c2-ltd.pdf accessed 24 January 2024

¹⁰ Bit Fintech Limited v. Ho Kai Xin & ors. (High Court of Singapore) 2023] SGHC 199 https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHC_199, accessed 24 January 2024

11 Unreported, 28 January 2022, available at https://files.lbr.cloud/public/2022-02/Judgment_0.pdf , accessed 24 January 2024

12 [2022] EWHC 2543 (Comm)

13 C.A. No. N21C-05-048 (Del. Super. Ct. April 14, 2022) https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=331980 , accessed 24 January 2024

14 Significant judgment by Dubai Court orders payment of damages in cryptocurrency instead of fiat currency, Wasel & Wasel, 19.10.2022, available at https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=61408a96-d623-48b6-93e8-1637481bc698 , accessed 24 January 2024

15 PRC court sets aside cryptocurrency award on public interest grounds, Herbert Smith Freehills, available at https://hsfnotes.com/arbitration/2021/03/05/prc-court-sets-aside-cryptocurrency-award-on-public-interest-grounds/ accessed 24 January 2024; See also The Court of Appeal of Western Central Greece in decision No 88/2021

16 Section 2 (h) FEMA

17 Section 26 of the RBI Act states that "every bank note shall be legal tender at any place in India in payment, or on account for the amount expressed therein, and shall be guaranteed by the Central Government"

18 Section 2 (a) of the Coinage Act, 2011

19 Section 2(i) of the Payments and Settlement Act, 2007

20 section 2(h) of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act 1956; See also Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India(Civil Appeal No. 9813 OF 2011)

21 Section 2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930

22 Section 2 (10) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.