As we are getting updated, all the features or articles of our journal may not be accessible. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Saturday, 10 May 2025
  • Board of Editors
  • Author’s Handbook
  • Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
  • Peer Review Process
  • Terms of Use
The Lex-Warrier: Online Law Journal
Menu
  • Home
  • Abstracts
  • Archive
  • Board of Editors
  • Call for Papers
Breaking News
  • 8 months ago - Call for Papers – Secular India in the 21st Century -
  • 2 years ago - Essence of freedom of speech and expression in the modern society -
  • 3 years ago - Separation of powers and rule of law: need for restraint rather than activism? -
  • 3 years ago - Philosophical sanctity of privacy: Issues & concerns -
  • 3 years ago - Right to be forgotten and personal data protection in India -

Delhi HC questions RBI on its decision to levy charge on ATM usage

December 26, 2014 by Lex-Warrier in Legal Update

A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice P S Teji of Delhi High Court questioned RBI on its decision to levy a charge on more than five ATM transactions per month by a customer even when he is an account holder in the bank. High Court while issuing notice in this regard to RBI, Indian Banks’ Association and SBI remarked “you are unnecessarily taxing account holders.”

Earlier, Reserve Bank of India has decided to back banks’ move to charge for ATM transactions beyond a threshold limit despite protests by consumer organisations and depositors. As per Reserve Bank’s new guidelines, bank customers in six metros– Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Hyderabad and Bangalore– are allowed to withdraw money and/or carry out non-financial transactions like mini-statements at ATMs of banks, where they hold saving/current accounts, free of charge only five times a month. Besides, the number of free transactions at ATMs of non-home banks has been cut to three times a month from five times.

Reserve Bank in its notification said that, “taking into account the high density of ATMs, bank branches and alternate modes of payment available to customers, the number of mandatory free ATM transactions for savings bank account customers at other banks? ATMs are reduced from the present 5 to 3 transactions per month (inclusive of both financial and non-financial transactions).”

The RBI, however, clarified that nothing precludes a bank from offering more than three free transactions at other bank ATMs to its account holders if it so desires. The cap in the number of free ATM transactions will not apply on small/no-frills or basic savings bank deposit account holders who will continue to enjoy five free transactions. At places other than the six metro centres, the facility of five free transactions for savings bank account customers will remain unchanged upon using other bank ATMs.

Related

ATMATM TransactionDelhi High CourtRBISaving Bank Account

AIIMS to treat a 13 year old boy suffering spinal tuberculosis

THE TEXTILE UNDERTAKINGS (NATIONALISATION) LAWS

Latest Abstracts

  • Call for Papers – Secular India in the 21st Century
  • Essence of freedom of speech and expression in the modern society
  • Separation of powers and rule of law: need for restraint rather than activism?
  • Philosophical sanctity of privacy: Issues & concerns
  • Right to be forgotten and personal data protection in India
  • Duties before rights
  • Aspects of federalism and emerging challenges before Indian Constitution
  • Call for Papers – Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav
  • Dissent, not hate: extinguishing the inflammable hate speech
  • “Revenge porn”, “doxxing” and “downstream distribution”: need for comprehensive legislation in India
  • Covid-19, force majeure and its impact on performance of contracts
  • Foreign direct investment policy tweaked amid covid-19: a move to keep China at bay
  • Internet and Mobile Association of India versus Reserve Bank of India
  • How COVID – 19 affects your employment
  • The hefty vacation period of the apex court, high courts, and the lower courts
  • Preferential issue of shares by Indian companies
  • A gender that is still not that equal: The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019
  • State’s response to mental health crisis under COVID 19
  • International law as catalyst of justice in times of pandemic Covid 19
  • Novelty: meaning and underpinnings in United States and Europe
  • Nexus between privacy and media law
  • COVID-19 and force majeure: a contractual perspective
  • A critical analysis of economic benefits of bilateral investment treaties
  • Competitive issues in the new age markets – challenges and way forward
  • Breaking myths: time to address the multidimensional concerns of child sexual abuse

Editor's Picks

  • Call for Papers – Secular India in the 21st Century

  • Essence of freedom of speech and expression in the modern society

  • Separation of powers and rule of law: need for restraint rather than activism?

  • Philosophical sanctity of privacy: Issues & concerns

  • Right to be forgotten and personal data protection in India

  • Duties before rights

  • Aspects of federalism and emerging challenges before Indian Constitution

  • Call for Papers – Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav

  • Dissent, not hate: extinguishing the inflammable hate speech

  • “Revenge porn”, “doxxing” and “downstream distribution”: need for comprehensive legislation in India

Follow Us

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

© Copyright 2025 The Lex-Warrier: Online Law Journal · Designed by Theme Junkie

You cannot copy content of this page

error: Content is protected !!