Ashish Gupta vs Indian Bank on 2 December, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ashish Gupta vs Indian Bank on 2 December, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 18.09.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 04.05.2020 and first appeal dated 27.06.2020:-

As per the Head Office sanction in this regard bearing no. HO/ADV/NIPL/2014- 15/236/1434 dated 29.09.2014, M/s Maa Santoshi Marble Pvt. Ltd. is a Guarantor. You are requested to intimate whether the below mentioned requisite information/ documents were procured from the Company before finalizing/completing the necessary documentation in this regard:

(i) Corporate Guarantee of M/s Maa Santoshi Marble Pvt. Ltd.

(ii) Any resolution duly affixing the common seal of the company.

Page 1 of 4

      (iii)     MOA of the captioned company.
     (iv)      Any charge in ROC of the Company i.e. M/s Maa Santoshi Marble Pvt. Ltd.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 04.05.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Bank, Gurugram, Haryana, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 11.06.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 27.06.2020. 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 18.09.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 18.09.2020 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 11.06.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) "Corporate Guarantee of M/s Maa Santoshi Marble Pvt. Ltd. was executed.

(ii) Resolution from M/s Maa Santoshi Marble Pvt. Ltd. was obtained on 16.11.2010. The common seal was not affixed by the Company.

(iii) MOA is not available with SAM Large Branch, New Delhi of Erstwhile Allahabad Bank.

(iv) The charge is registered in ROC of the company as on 31.05.2012."

The FAA vide order dated 14.08.2020 stated that the CPIO had already provided to the appellant.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shyri Ashish Jindal, Chief Manager and Shri Sanjog Bahadur, Manager (Law), Indian Bank, Delhi, attended the hearing in person.

Page 2 of 4

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise information to the appellant vide letter dated 11.06.2020. They further submitted that the loan was sanctioned by the bank in 2009 which was subsequently turned into NPA. They informed that at the request of the borrower, the account was restructured vide letter no. HO/ADV/NIPL/2014-15/SL 236/1434 dated 29.09.2014. However, the borrower/guarantor did not deposit the amount agreed upon in the account and they also did not complete the documentation in respect of aforementioned sanction. Besides, they informed that documents relating to the loan available with the bank had already been provided to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the appellant was guarantor of the company i.e., M/s Maa Santoshi Marble Pvt. Ltd. It was brought into the notice of the Commission that loan was sanctioned in the name of M/s Maa Santoshi Marble Pvt. Ltd. in 2009 which became NPA after sometime. The respondent during the course of hearing submitted that the appellant had requested for restructuring of the loan account which was allowed by their Head Office. However, they never executed necessary agreement and deposited the amount agreed upon. Hence, the restructuring which was agreed could not take off. The respondent had provided point -wise reply/information to the appellant. Moreover, the appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. Hence, the submissions of the respondent were taken on record. The Commission is of the view that there is no public interest in further prolonging the matter. 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: 28.11.2022
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (   आर. सीताराम मूत )
                                                                                Page 3 of 4
 Dy. Registrar (   उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)
Addresses of the parties:
The CPIO
Indian Bank,
1st Floor, 17, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001

First Appellate Authority
Indian Bank, 254 - 260,
Avvai Shamnumgam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai- 600 014

Shri Ashish Gupta,




                                    Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission