Sameer Bansal vs Syndicate Bank on 13 November, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sameer Bansal vs Syndicate Bank on 13 November, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 14.03.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 04.10.2017 and first appeal dated 20.11.2017:

(i) All details of the proposal /application and submitted by the NSP Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd. to Syndicate Bank and the relevant Document through to which Syndicate Bank processed and sanctioned two Term Loans to the company as follows.

Page 1 of 4

(ii) Term Loan for Rs. 50 Cr. for executing / completion of Hotel Project at Neemrana Rajasthan.

(iii) Term Loan for Rs.35 Cr. for Completion of a Retail Shops/ Office and Service Suits at Neemrana Rajasthan.

(iv) New Proposal Submitted by us Dated 18-07-2017 Retail Shops/ Office lease model and Service Suits at Neemrana Rajasthan.

(v) The Details of Correspondence between to Applicant in his capacity as Managing Director NSP Associates (India) Pvt Ltd. the Borrowing and the Bank Company during the period 2014 up till date regarding release of the Term Loans.

(vi) Also the Basis on which the Syndicate Bank collected a commitment / up front fees from the Company of Rs. 50 Cr. Loan Rs. 70,22,500/- on Dated 30-08-2014 and Rs. 35 Cr. Loan Rs. 25,04,688/- Dated 19-12-2015. The Applicant also requires the internal

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 04.10.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, Bhagwan Das Road, Sarojini House, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 09.11.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 20.11.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 27.12.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 14.03.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 14.03.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent replied without knowing the factual position of the case.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 09.11.2017 denied the information on point no. 4 under section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act and demanded Rs. 6/- from the appellant for supplying the documents sought for.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri K.S. Manral, Assistant General Manager and Smt. Pallavi Sood, Manager (Law), Syndicate Bank, New Delhi, attended the hearing in person.

Page 2 of 4

5.1. The respondent endorsed their reply given vide CPIO's letter dated 09.11.2017 and submitted that majority of the information was under the custody of functional area of PlO, RO, Faridabad where the account of M/s. NSP Associates was being maintained. They further stated that the process note for sanctioning loans to the prospective customers contained various factors based upon the internal guidelines of the bank for lending. The respondent explained that the Bank formulated its policies exclusively which was not meant to be published as it could harm the competitive position of the Bank in the market. The criterion for granting loans by the Bank, its procedures, the matrix and the manner to ascertain the viability of the proposal contained various internal parameters of the bank, which in case made public could harm the competitive position of the bank. Therefore, they could not disclose the information under section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels that due reply was given to the appellant vide their letters dated 09.11.2017 and 27.12.2017. Further, the appellant has neither filed any objection nor appeared before the Commission to controvert the submissions made by the respondent. Hence, the submissions of respondent are taken on record. The Commission feels that no useful purpose would be served in further prolonging the proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा Information Commissioner(सूसूचनाआयु ) दनांक/ Date:11.11.2019 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (R. Sitarama Murthy) (आर. सीताराम मू त) Page 3 of 4 Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. SYNDICATE BANK ZONAL OFFICE NEW DELHI SECOND FLOOR, 6, BHAGWAN DAS ROAD, SAROJINI HOUSE, NEW DELHI-110001 THE F.A.A, Syndicate Bank, ZONAL OFFICE NEW DELHI, SECOND FLOOR, 6, BHAGWAN DAS ROAD, SAROJINI HOUSE, NEW DELHI-110001 SAMEER BANSAL Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission