Central Information Commission
Sundaresan vs Reserve Bank Of India on 5 January, 2026
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/607548
Sundaresan ... अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO: Department of
Supervision Reserve Bank of ...प्रद्वतवादीगण/Respondents
India Central Office Centre 1,
World Trade Centre Mumbai
- 400 005
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 28-11-2023 FA : 01-01-2024 SA : NIL
FAO : 01-02-2024
CPIO : 20-12-2023 Hearing : 05.01.2026
Date of Decision: 05.01.2026
CORAM:
Information Commissioner
Khushwant Singh Sethi
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28-11-2023 seeking information on the following points:
"The attached information may pls be furnished. We have already faced issues with in GTB, ILFS, DHFL, LV8, PNB, Yes Bank, PMC Banks, Srei, Reliance Capital etc all banks and NBFCs and Core Companies. Auditors of Land T Finance Holdings Limited for 2021-22, 2022-23 misstating audit standard SA 720 and auditors of, Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited for 2022-23 misstating Order Page 1 of 6
3)(iii)(f) of CARO 2020. Both are reported as listed NBFCs and perhaps deposit accepting also. Also see no information furnished in CIC-RBIND-A-2017-607158 CIC-RBIND-A-2017-607172 etc .A The highlighted portion at page 54 and 56 mentions on the auditors of L and T Finance Holdings Limited for 2021-22, 2022-23 misstating audit standard SA 720 and auditors of, Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited for 2022-23 misstating Order 3) (iii)(f) of CARO 2020. Both are reported as listed NBFCs and perhaps deposit accepting also.
2) We have already faced issues with in GTB, ILFS, DHFL, LVB, PNB, Yes Bank, PMC Banks, Srei , Reliance Capital etc all banks and NBFCs and Core Companies where auditors and secretarial auditors have not reported timely on extortion of hike in fees, suppression of adverse matters and not reporting them timely by auditors, auditors not reporting timely on prejudical lendings and adverse lendings including secured loans on inadequate security prejudical to the lenders, diversion of funds in long term irredeemable loans and loans without any repayment tenure and repayable at will of borrowers and lenders etc etc etc.
3) Other matters include no action against guarantors, even if they are beneficiaries of the said reports of the auditors and of conspiracies, authorised representatives of lending or non lending public financial institutions holding equities in DHFL and others voting at AGMs favourably on disclaimed audit reports, adverse audit reports, audit reports not meeting requirements of law etc etc etc. Lenders lending substantially eg in DHFL without verifying if the borrowers' Articles of Association allows lenders to appoint nominee directors, reporting requirements to their superiors by nominees of lenders and authorised representatives of lenders or non lenders being public financial institutions holding shares attending AGMs, and Page 2 of 6 ATRs on such reports by lenders/ public financial institutions and RBI and Ministry of Finance etc .
4) ATR on the matters stated above and in the paras of the attachments explained in the index of the attachments attached may be furnished. Some of the paras in some of the attachments refers to mails however in case the mails cannot be retrieved by you the headers of the mails and/or relevant extracts of the headers of the mails mention the areas on which ATR is sought
5) The ATRs are sought:
5.1) Entity wise eg for Yes Bank separately, for DHFL separately with emphasis on but not restricted to entities where considerable public funds have been lost and are in insolvencies--- the ATRs may be linked to a time frame eg year wise in 2017, 2018, 2019 ,2020,2021,2022 and quarter wise for first 3 quarters of 2023 and monthwise for the subsequent quarters of 2023 and 2024 depending on the date of furnishing of the information 5.2) Para wise page wise pointwise from this page to the end 5.3) A" NIL" ATR where a" NIL ATR is the appropriate reply that too para wise point wise 5.4) The CPIO also may say take out key words for some, but not all paras and furnish ATR eg 5.4.1) para 1.1 page 2 of 57 read with para 7 and 8 page 4/57 on extortion by auditors 5.4.2) para 1.2 page 2 common modus operandi, AGM fraud, insolvencies, losses in insolvencies, Art SIA etc etc 5.4.3) para 6/page 5 to 14/57-the CPIO may club" multiple acts of misconduct Sec 447 and auditors", "net worth wipe aut insolvencies etc" cunningly deceptive and fraudulent audit reports, etc etc etc and furnish information on ATR Page 3 of 6 5.45 entire para 3 and 4 and 6 at pages 16 to 19/57 may be clubbed under one head and so on 5.4.6 The idea based on which the CPIO may furnish information has been explained and he may proceed further considering the spirit of RTIA and duties of public authorities 5.4.7) in respect of some matters, RBI or MOF or both may have referred the matters to the other and/or to each other and/or to others eg ICAI, NFRA, SFIO Ministry Corporate Affairs, CBI, CVC, SEBI, IBBI, ICSI etc etc-details may be furnished including ta 5.4.8) similarly others may have referred to RBI or MOF or both details may be furnished including ATR.. etc."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20-12-2023 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
" Queries are not clear and specific."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01-01-2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 01-02-2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Vivek Mittal, CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent is dealing with bankruptcy and does not disclose the steps taken by them to cross check personal guarantee. The appellant further submitted that the respondent does not take action against personal guarantors.
Page 4 of 6The Commission queried the appellant to be specific with the information sought in his RTI Application but, the appellant did not point out the exact point on which he is dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the appellant is not specific and the same was informed to the appellant vide reply dated 20.12.2023.
8. Written submission dated 30.12.2025 filed by the respondent is taken on record.
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, finds that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant vide reply dated 20.12.2023 and no further intervention of the Commission is required. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Khushwant Singh Sethi) (खुशवन्त स िंह ेठी) Information Commissioner ( ूचना आयुक्त) द्वदनां क/Date: 05.01.2026 Authenticated true copy S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26107026 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Department of Supervision Reserve Bank of India Central Office Centre 1, World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400 005 Page 5 of 6 2 The FAA, Department of Supervision Reserve Bank of India Central Office Centre 1, World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400 005
3. Shri Sundaresan Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)