M. L. Joseph vs Bank Of India on 13 October, 2021

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

M. L. Joseph vs Bank Of India on 13 October, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 24.05.2019 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 01.03.2019 and first appeal dated 16.04.2019:-

 Details regarding his representation to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank of India, with regard to the appointment of Mrs. Kavitha Surana upon the recommendations of officials of Bank of India, Chennai in proceedings before the NCLT, Chennai by furnishing information and answers to the following questions of the Applicant:

(i) What is the procedure followed by your Bank to select the Insolvency Resolution Professional and recommend his/her name for being Page 1 of 7 appointed as the IRP in an ongoing proceeding before the National Company Law Tribunal at Chennai?

(ii) Who is the officer empowered to shortlist and select such insolvency professional?

(iii) Is there a recommendation letter or any document disclosing the recommendations of the names of an insolvency professional maintained in the Bank at any level, either in Chennai or in Mumbai (Headquarters), particularly in respect of the recommendation of Mrs. Kavitha Surana to act as the Resolution Professional in the following cases at the NCLT Chennai:

a. Royal Splendour Developers Pvt. Ltd - CP/628/IB/CB/2017 b. Air Carnival Pvt. Ltd. - CP/565/(IB)/CB/2017 c. Sri Veerganapathi Steels Pvt. Ltd. - CP/229/(IB)/CB/2018

(iv) What are the parameters that are considered to pass the recommendation in favour of any Resolution Professional before the said recommendation is communicated during the hearing by the counsel for the bank in the NCLT for passing the order of appointment of the Resolution Professional in a Company Petition?

(v) How many other Resolution Professionals' names and profiles were considered prior to recommending Mrs. Kavitha Surana's name in the above mentioned cases to be furnished in respect of each case separately?

(vi) What were the disqualification criteria for other Resolution Professionals and what was the additional qualification that entitled Mrs. Kavitha Surana to the recommendation of your bank?

(vii) What is the salary of a Resolution Professional so appointed by the NCLT?

Page 2 of 7

(viii) It the salary fixed by the NCLT or by the Bank?

(ix) Whether the Resolution Professional submits her demand for remuneration or is it fixed by the bank officials?

(x) Whether the salary payable to the Resolution professional is ascertained and fixed before the recommendation is communicated by the bank to the NCLT?

(xi) Is the salary of the RP paid on monthly basis or quarterly basis or at the end of the statutory period of 180 days or such other extended period in a lump sum?

(xii) What is the total remuneration received by the Resolution Professional, Mrs. Kavitha Surana from bank of India, Chennai, for performing her duties as the Resolution Professional in the above 3 cases?

(xiii) What are the other permissible expenses that are allowed on raising of bills by the Resolution Professional?

(xiv) What is the total money paid to Mrs. Kavitha Surana pursuant to her appointment as the Resolution Professional in CP/229/(IB)/CB/2018 by the order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the NCLT, Chennai, till date, inclusive of her remuneration?

(xv) Is the Resolution Professional required to raise an invoice for her salary payments and expenses separately? If so, please furnish the copies of the said invoices?

(xvi) Who is the designated authority to authorize the expenses incurred by Mrs. Kavitha Surana as the Resolution Professional before passing or allowing payments to her credit?

(xvii) In how many cases has your bank recommended the name of Mrs. Kavitha Surana to be considered by the NCLT to act as the IRP? In Page 3 of 7 how many of the said cases was she continued as the Resolution Professional and later on appointed as the Official Liquidator? (xviii) In how many cases which are yet to be ordered by the NCLT on the aspect of appointment of IRP and admission of the said CPs, has Mrs. Kavitha Surana's name been recommended by your bank and yet to be ordered by the NCLT?

(xix) In how many CPs across India, was your bank able to complete the resolution Process without moving for liquidation, either in the permissible 180 days or in the extended 90 days, totaling to 270 days? (xx) In how many CPs in Chennai has the Resolution Professional Mrs. Kavitha Surana, successfully completed insolvency resolution process within the statutory period or within the extended period granted by the NCLT?

(xxi) How many companies have been subjected to liquidation proceedings where the Resolution Professional Mrs. Kavitha Surana has acted as the liquidator?

(xxii) Who is the designated authority who interacts with the Resolution Professional and whether the meetings of such professional with the Resolution Professional are duly recorded in any of the internal records of the Bank and communicated to the Headquarters periodically?

(xxiii) Whether the representation of the Applicant dated 16.02.2019 has been received by the office of the Chairman, Bank of India, Mumbai, and to which officer of the Bank is the said representation forwarded for further action?

(xxiv) Whether an acknowledgement in any form with regard to having initiated action in accordance with law on the applicant's Page 4 of 7 representation dated 16.02.2019 with regard to anomalies and possible malpractices in the recommendation of the Resolution Professional Mrs. Kavitha Surana has been alleged, has been sent to the Applicant either through post or through email till date? If yes, kindly furnish the reference details? If not, kindly furnish the reasons as to why the applicant is not entitled to such an acknowledgment through your bank?

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 01.03.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Chennai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 10.04.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 16.04.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 17.05.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 24.05.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 24.05.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.04.2019 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"Reply to the Query No. I to XXII:-

The information which you have sought is exempted under section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the name are commercial confidence and the larger public interest does not warrant disclosure of such information and the information which you have sought is personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and the larger public interest does Page 5 of 7 not justify the disclosure of such information. The disclosure of information which you had sought that also amount to diverting the resources of public authority and would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the records by the public authority in terms of Section 7(g) of the RTI Act.

Reply to Query No. XXIII to XXIV:

Your representation dated 15.02.2019, addressed to the Chairman of the Bank has been received by Head Office and the same shall be looked into on merits, if any."

The FAA vide order dated 17.05.2019 concurred with the view of CPIO.

5. The appellant as well as respondent remained absent despite notice.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given to the appellant. Perusal of the RTI application reveals that information sought was in the form of seeking answer to the queries/questions which may not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. It is pertinent to mention that the parties were not present to press their second appeal despite hearing notice. Since, the reply is proper, the Commission feels that public purpose would not be served in prolonging the matter. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 11.10.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 6 of 7 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. BANK OF INDIA NATIONAL BANKING GROUP(SOUTH) 707 - 708, 7TH FLOOR, PHASE I, SPENCER PLAZA, 769 ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BANK OF INDIA, NATIONAL BANKING GROUP(SOUTH), 707 - 708, 7TH FLOOR, PHASE I, SPENCER PLAZA, 769 ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI- 600 002 M. L. Joseph Page 7 of 7

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission