The Supreme Court has sought an affidavit from the Centre explaining the legal and executive basis for permitting MDR on specified merchant UPI payments above ₹2,000. Notice was issued to the Centre, RBI and NPCI, but the Court declined to stay the framework scheduled to take effect on October 15.
A PIL before the Supreme Court challenges the Centre’s decision to withdraw zero-MDR protection for UPI transactions above Rs 2,000 from October 15, arguing that a multi-tiered merchant fee fixed by press release rather than notified rules is arbitrary, burdens small traders and violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The petition seeks the framework’s quashing or a fresh, data-backed consultation reviewed by the RBI.
The Centre has notified that no bank or payment system provider may impose any charge, directly or indirectly, on either the payer or the recipient for payments made through RuPay debit cards and UPI transactions up to Rs 2,000, exercising a newly-inserted power under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act. New Delhi: The Central Government […]
Today, On 24th December, The Delhi High Court restrained the use of the name ‘PhonePey Loan’ in a trademark case filed by PhonePe. The court also ordered GoDaddy to take down the ‘PhonePey Loan’ website. PhonePe raised concerns that the name was too similar to its trademark. The court’s decision is to avoid any confusion among users.
![[BharatPe 81 Crore Fraud Case] Delhi High Court Quashes Lookout Circular Against Ashneer Grover, Wife Madhuri](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/image-29.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Delhi High Court Today (Oct 7) informed that fintech firm BharatPe, its former co-founder Ashneer Grover and his wife Madhuri Jain Grover have settled their disputes in a case of an alleged Rs 81 crore fraud. The parties urged Justice Chandra Dhari Singh to quash the FIR lodged against Grover and his family in light of the September 30 settlement agreement. Court listed the matter on October 8.
The Supreme Court rejected PhonePe’s trademark infringement claim against DigiPe, emphasizing the complexities of trademark disputes in fintech. PhonePe argued that DigiPe’s name could confuse consumers, but the court noted the widespread use of “Pe.” The decision highlights the need for distinct branding and evidence in trademark disputes in the digital payments industry.
