Parveen Gupta vs Export Import Bank Of India (Exim Bank) on 29 August, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Parveen Gupta vs Export Import Bank Of India (Exim Bank) on 29 August, 2022

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 31.08.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 05.03.2020 and first appeal dated 02.07.2020 :-

(i) Date of application for taking financial assistance from the Bank by Samtel Color Ltd.

(ii) Detail of the properties mortgaged by the party against the said financial assistance.

(iii) Detail of the due diligence done by the bank for the mortgaged properties.

(iv) Detail of the charge created on the mortgaged properties by the bank.

Page 1 of 4

(v) Please provide the details for any kind of name change of the company during the financial assistance period.

(vi) Please provide the details for merger/amalgamation of the company during the financial assistance period.

(vii) Please provide the details of effective steps taken and documents collected after merger/amalgamation of the company during the financial assistance period.

(viii) Please provide the details of the consortium banks and their charge created for the financial assistance provided to the company.

(ix) Please provide the quantum of financial assistance provided to the company by member banks of the consortium.

(x) Please provide the name of lead bank of consortium during the financial assistance period.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 05.03.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), (Export-Import) Bank of India, Mumbai , seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 09.04.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 02.07.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 14.08.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 31.08.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 31.08.2020 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 09.04.2020 and the same is reproduced as under :-

Page 2 of 4

Point - i) On account of lockdown and government directions, we don't access to the physical data. The information to such query shall be provided after the office reopens and there is access to physical data.

Point-ii) The mortgage was created by a trustee or some other agent bank for the consortium and the forms have been duly filed with the Registrar of Companies which may be accessed on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

Point-iii) The mortgage was created by trustee or some other agent bank for consortium and the due diligence was done by the trustee.

Point-iv) The forms have been duly filed with the Registrar of Companies which may be accessed on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

Point-vi & vii) The company has not undergone any merger/amalgamation since the loan was sanctioned.

Point-viii) The forms have been duly filed for all charges of all lenders with the Registrar of Companies which may be accessed on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs.


      Point-ix)     Please refer to the response at Q.No. iv

      Point-x)      ICICI Bank Limited

The FAA vide order dated 14.08.2020 agreed to the reply of CPIO and expressed regret for the delay caused due to lockdown.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Uday Shinde, General Manager, Shri Amit Kumar, Assistant General Manager and Shri Tushar, Chief Manager, Export-Import Bank of India, Mumbai Suburban, attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 3 of 4

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had furnished point-wise reply/information to the appellant vide letter dated 09.04.2020. Thereafter, they had not received any communication from the appellant. Therefore, they requested that the second appeal deserved to be closed.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 09.04.2020. Further, in the absence of the appellant or any written objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent were taken on record. There appears to be no public interest in prolonging the matter further. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

                                                                             सुरेश चं ा)
                                                          (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                          सूचना आयु )
                                               Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                दनांक/Date: 25.08.2022
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)


Addresses of the parties:
The CPIO
Export-Import Bank of
India Centre One Building,
21st floor, World Trade Centre
Complex, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai-400 005

First Appellate Authority
Export-Import Bank of
India Centre One Building,
 21st floor, World Trade
Centre Complex,
Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005

Shri Parveen Gupta,




                                                                                  Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission