N Shanmugam vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 17 July, 2023

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

N Shanmugam vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 17 July, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 22.08.2022 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 25.04.2022 and first appeal dated 25.06.2022:-

 Information's pertaining to Sreenidhi Hi-tech Foord Industries and Varshini Grain Processing Industry :

(i) On which date application submitted for both these accounts for the term loan and working capital.

(a) How much was their requirement, was the project report submitted what was the production capacity.

(b) How much did these companies say that they would infuse participation.

How much they requested you.

Page 1 of 9

(d) How much was sanctioned towards Term and working loan. What was its final project report?

(e) From which date the term loan was given to these companies. Details of those with dates.

(f) On which date the completion report was submitted by the promoter. On which date the working capital loan was asked to run the company, those details.

(g) On which dates these 2 companies were disbursed the working capital loans those details.

(ii) On 16.03.2011from the term loan account Rs 921849/- insurance was taken forcefully in companies promoters name.

(a) The details of the same. Why was it taken?

(b) On this from which date the information is asked for.

(d) How the insurance amount was taken from the sanctioned term loan account.

(e) After taking the same, how the project will function.

(f) For taking the amount which RBI law gave permission ? Its right wrong - the proof of GO.

(g) From the sanctioned term loan if we transfer funds to some other company. It's a deviation as per RBI. The GO for the same.

(iii) In the same year, you sanctioned loans to BNK in Puducherry and Shyam and Jayanthi Agro Foods in Tindivanam with Term Loans and working capital loan.

(a) How much term and working capital loan was given.

Page 2 of 9

(b) What is the production capacities of those companies.

(d) Were insurance policies taken from the promoters of those companies, those details?

(iv) In the year 2011, when thane cyclone struck what was the position of these companies:

(a) Were these 2 affected by cyclones.

(b) What was their losses

(c) How much they required you to repair/ renovate their companies.

(d) How was the funds repaid- those details.

(v) From the accounts of these two companies in the year 2011, 2012 how much principal and interest was charged and taken:

(a) Individually in the capacity of promoter, interest and principal was taken

- dates and amounts of the same.

(b)The promoter in the year 2014 paid Rs 108 lakh:

(i) Why this was taken?

(ii) After taking money did you keep the words given to the promoter?

(iii) On the basis of this, how much working capital was given by you?

If not given, what is the RBI law for breach of trust?

(vi) In the year 2017, to rectify the account and to run the company extra collateral was taken:

(a) How much contribution / participation was brought by the promoter.

(b) How much working capital was sanctioned for operations.

(c) You to hide your fault borrowed Rs 50lakh from an outsider to rectify the account. The details have already been asked for with RTI earlier.

Page 3 of 9

(d) You immediately released Rs 50 lakh to him. The details have already been asked for in RTI earlier.

(e) What do RBI rules say? Is there is a way to rectify the account as per RBI as by you, those details.

(vii) From the day of account opening to till date, did the companies submit in their yearly balance sheet, did you receive them?

(a) Details of the year wise.

(viii) From the date of account opening to till date how much service charges have been taken for the two companies, dated and amount to be mentioned.

(ix) From the date of account opening how much interest and principal were received.

(a) Details of them with amount and date.

(x) In the year 2021, may be rectified to 2020, before 2 days you auctioned the property I approached Puducherry branch with father:

(a) We informed to pay the full OTS amount on the same day - Puducherry branch manager did not accept the same. Why they did not accept.

(b) The Puducherry branch manager asked to meet the GM in Chennai. We went on the same day.

(i) The permission was denied by Mr Selvaprakash, who was previous manager of the Puducherry branch.

(ii) We returned back after waiting until 10.30.pm

(iii) Why our permission was denied.

(iv) Why our permission was denied.

(v) Because of this we were affected continuously.

(vi) Likewise, when you have auction in your bank, the details of account settled in the last minute Pan India, those details with amount to be mentioned.

Page 4 of 9

(xi) In Puducherry - when my property was taken for auction, those items and materials to be given back :

(a) Video coverage was asked for - was it given.

(b) Were the confiscated proof receipt given.

(c) Were steps taken to return back the articles?

(xii) As against your bank for deficiency, when should we contact for relief in case of dissatisfaction - what are the departments are for the same, details.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 25.04.2022 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), IDBI Bank Ltd, Mumbai. The CPIO vide letter dated 03.06.2022 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 25.06.2022. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 12.07.2022 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 22.08.2022 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 22.08.2022 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 03.06.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) Please refer to your application letter for details.

In case you are desirous of having copy of the same, please make payment of Rs 4/- (No of pages-2* Rs 2/-) under RTI Act.

(a) Please refer to point (1) above.

(b) Please refer to the sanction letter for details, which is accepted by you earlier.

In case, you are desirous of having copy of the same, please make payment of Rs 116/- (No of pages - 58* Rs 2/-) under the RTI Act.

Page 5 of 9

Please refer to point (1) above.

In case, you are desirous of having copy of valuation report, please make payment of Rs 60/- (No of pages-30* Rs 2/-) under the RTI Act.

(d) Please refer to the sanction letter for details which is accepted by you earlier.

In case, you are desirous of having copy of valuation report, please make payment of Rs 116/- (No of pages-58* Rs 2/-) under the RTI Act.

(e) The account statement details can be provided on your making payment of Rs 160/- (Rs 2/- per page for 80 pages as per RTI Act.

(f) Query seeking opinion /answer /explanation/clarification/ etc cannot be termed as information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

(ii) (a) to (e).

Please refer to the Loan assurance policy issued by the insurance company.

(f)The amount is collected as per internal Bank's policy, which is of commercial confidence and exempted u/s 8(1) (d) of RTI Act from disclosure.

(g)We are following our internal Bank's policy which is of commercial confidence and exempted u/s 8(1)(d) of RTI Act from disclosure.

(iii) (a) to (d) Since the information sought is related to third party, under the RTI Act, it is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1) (d) and 8 (1) (e).

(iv) (a) to (b) Page 6 of 9 Query seeking opinion /answer /explanation/clarification/ etc cannot be termed as information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

(v) (a) The account statement details can be provided on your making payment of Rs 160/- (Rs 2/- per page for 80 pages as per RTI Act.

(b) The information sought is vague and not clear and specific in nature. CPIO is not in a position to understand the questioned and provide the information.

(vi) (a) & (b). Please refer to the sanction letter for details which is accepted by you earlier.

In case, you are desirous of having copy of valuation report, please make payment of Rs 116/- (No of pages-58* Rs 2/-) under the RTI Act.

(c) to (e). Query seeking opinion /answer /explanation/clarification/ etc cannot be termed as information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

(vii) Query seeking opinion /answer /explanation/clarification/ etc cannot be termed as information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

(viii) The account statement details can be provided on your making payment of Rs 160/- (Rs 2/- per page for 80 pages as per RTI Act.

(ix) The account statement details can be provided on your making payment of Rs 160/- (Rs 2/- per page for 80 pages as per RTI Act.

(x) (a) to (b) Query seeking opinion /answer /explanation/clarification/ etc cannot be termed as information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

(xi) (a) to (c) Page 7 of 9 This information can be provided on receipt of payment of Rs 56/- (Rs 2/- per copy x 28 pages), under the RTI Act.

(xii) Query seeking opinion /answer /explanation/clarification/ etc cannot be termed as information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

The FAA vide order dated 12.07.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Sridhar, CPIO, IDBI Bank Limited, Mumbai, attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the information provided by the respondent was partially incomplete. He insisted upon the information with respect to point nos (ii)

(d), (v) (b) and (xi) of the RTI application. He argued that insurance amount was deducted from the loan account and he wanted to know the mode of deduction.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the deduction towards loan insurance amount was made as per the bank guidelines and the same informed to the appellant, vide letter dated 03.06.2022. They further stated that they had demanded fee towards photocopying charges of documents from the appellant and he had failed to deposit the same. They further assured to provide the video coverage sought by the appellant in point no. (xi) of the RTI application.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent was incomplete. During the course of hearing, the appellant pressed for action with respect to point nos (ii) (d), (v) (b) and (xi) of the RTI application. It may be noted that the respondent may not merely state that the action of deduction was taken by them based on guidelines. They were under an obligation to provide their customers the policies/guidelines as per which they had taken insurance. As regards, point no. (v) (b) of the RTI application, it may be noted that the appellant had sought clarification and the same was not squarely covered within the definition of "information" under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Further, the respondent during the course of hearing gave an undertaking that they would provide the CCTV/video coverage sought in point no. (xi) of the RTI Page 8 of 9 application. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to re-visit the RTI application, provide copy of insurance policy and copy of appellant's request application for loan insurance [point no. ii (b) of the RTI application] and video coverage [point no. (xi) of the RTI application] to the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 17.07.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO IDBI Bank Limited, IDBI Tower, Cuffe Parade, WTC Complex, Mumbai - 400 005 First Appellate Authority, IDBI Bank Limited, IDBI Tower, Cuffe Parade, WTC Complex, Mumbai - 400 005 Shri N Shanmugam Page 9 of 9

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission