Central Information Commission
R. Gopinathan Nair vs Indian Overseas Bank on 17 October, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/IOVBK/A/2024/138191
R. Gopinathan Nair ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Indian Overseas Bank,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 17.08.2024 FA : 28.09.2024 SA : 21.11.2024
CPIO : 19.08.2024 FAO : 02.11.2024 Hearing : 15.10.2025
Date of Decision: 16.10.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "The latest land valuation certificate of the properties comprised in survey numbers of 53, 54 and 55 at Premavathipet Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal. Renga Reddy (Dist) Telangana State owned by Smt. R. Geetha Vasanth.
2. Certified copy of deposition made by Sri. R. Bhaskaran Nair (late), the General Power of Attorney Holder (not admitted) of Smt. R. Geetha Vasanth (late), before the Officials of the Indian Overseas bank, Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram during 2014 with respect to the alienation of the above Page 1 of 8 said mortgaged property situated at Premavathipet Village. Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Renga Reddy (Dist) Telangana State.
3. Copy of the One-Time Settlement (OTS) request submitted by Sri. Aswini Kumar Sugandhi, S/o Kantilal Sugandhi and others who are the residents of Hyderabad and Indian Overseas Bank on the Loan Account of KJP Group of Companies, Kollam branch dt 28/03/2024.
4. Copy of the legal opinion for sanctioning the one time settlement request made by Sri Aswini Kumar Sugandhi, S/o Kantilal Sugandhi and others and Indian Overseas Bank who are the residents of Hyderabad on the loan Account of KJP Group of Companies, Kollam.
5. The minutes copy passed on the basis of the above said OTS request made by the above said AswinKumar Sugandhi, S/o Kantilal Sugandhi and others and Indian Overseas Bank....' etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. "Information sought for relates to latest valuation report of the said property and it is not available with the Branch.
2. Information sought for is not available at Branch.
3. As the loan was repaid fully as per contractual dues. No OTS has been done for the loan account.
4. The legal opinion was solicited by the Bank from the advocate as a client which is confidential in nature and the same cannot be parted with.
5. There is no minutes regarding the Settlement of the account...." etc.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.09.2024. The FAA vide order dated 02.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 2 of 84. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.11.2024.
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Dayal Prasad, Regional Manager & CAPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Appellant assisted by his advocate relied largely on the arguments contained in their written statement filed in length narrating the entire factual background of the dispute with the Bank vis-à-vis the averred mortgaged property. The relevant extracts of the submissions are reproduced hereunder:
"2. The appellant is the Managing Director of Zodiac Cashew Pvt. Ltd, which is one of the seven loan account of M/s KJK Group of Companies at Kollam, Kerala and he is also the legal heir and husband of (late) Smt. R. Geetha Vasanth.
3. By virtue of Sale deed No. 1079/1966, six members in the same family namely Ramanujam Thampi, Leela Vasanth, Mohandas Rajan@ J. Mohandas Rajan Pillai, Geetha Vasanth, Shobha Vasanth and Jyothi Vasanth jointly purchased 25 Acres of agricultural land comprised in Survey Numbers 46,53,54,55 and 56/2 in Premavathipet Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The land was purchased for agricultural purpose and for development of grape gardens.
4. In 1970 by virtue of a registered Partition deed No. 614/1970 the property was partitioned among the co-owners. Smt. Geetha Vasant, Shobha Vasanth and Jyothi Vasant obtained 3 Acres and 37 Guntas each and the total was admeasuring 11 Acres and 21 Guntas. They have made mutation of the property in their individual names and were collectively using as agricultural land.
5. On 18/11/1983, for the purpose expansion of their family cashew export business Smt. Geetha Vasant, Smt. Shobha Vasanth and Smt. Jyothi Vasant created equitable mortgage of above-mentioned properties by depositing their original title deeds with Indian Overseas Bank, Kollam Branch, Kerala as guarantor. The mortgage was created as security for various credit facilities extended to seven cashew companies Page 3 of 8 viz M/s Zodiac Cashew Company, Raj Cashew Company, Transworld Cashew Company, Raj Mohan Cashew Company, Eureka Shipping Company, Janso Exports and National Cashew Company., collectively known as 'KJP Group of Companies'. All the original title deeds including Partition deed No. 614/1970 were deposited in the Bank and according to the appellant the documents are still in the custody of the Bank.
6. While so, the loan became sticky and the Bank approached DRT and settlement talks were done between KJK Group of Companies and the Bank. On the basis of Settlement talks on 12/3/2024 the appellant went to the Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram....
7. While so with malice intention for taking undue advantage, the Regional Manager without complying any of the provisions for settling a matter in the case of Securitization proceedings, settled the matter with five strange persons namely 1. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sugandhi, S/o Late Kantilal ,H.No. 3-6-128, Hyderguda, Street No. 14, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500029 2. Ashwini Kumar Sugandhi, S/o Late Kantilal, H.No. 8-2-293/82/A, 192, Road No. 14, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033. And 3. Meera Sugandhi, D/o Late Kantilal, H.No. 22-5-191, GulzarHouz, Hyderabad 500002. They fraudulently alleged that they are the purchasers of the subject mortgaged property virtue of Sale deed Nos. 9390/1994. 9391/1994 and 9774/1994 alleged to be executed in their favour by one Mr. Bhaskaran Nair who was alleged to be the Power of Attorney Holder of property owners, Smt. Geetha Vasanth, Shobha Vasanth and Jyothi Vasanth. It is humbly submitted that none of the original owners executed such a deed of Power of Attorney in favour Bhaskaran Nair, who was only a Manager of one of the cashew companies.
xxx
9. At the time of proclamation for sale of 28 items of properties in 2004, The Indian Overseas Bank, Kollam Branch, Kerala had obtained current Encumbrance certificate, possession Certificate and Village Tax for all properties including Hyderabad property belonging to the appellant and others. Indian Overseas Bank Page 4 of 8 obtained Encumbrance Certificate from 01-01-1980 to 04-09-2001 which shows that there are no subsisting Encumbrance in appellant and others' property as alleged by the third parties, which was clearly submitted by the Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Kollam Branch to before the DRT-2 Court, Ernakulam, Kerala as 42 Counter Affidavit in IA.41/2004 to IA.82/2004. 10.OA.8/1998 in DRC 115/2001, Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Zodiac Cashew (p) Ltd., DRT-2 Court, Ernakulam, The IOB, Kollam Branch havn't reported the illegal settlement with the third parties till date. The next posting is 27.10.2025 and DRC 115/2001, case is still pending.
11. The information sought for is not exempted under any provisions in Section 6,8 and 9 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Information sought for by the appellant under RTI Act can only be denied under the specific instances enumerated in Sections 8 and 9 of the said Act and in no other. It was found by High Court of Kerala in Binu Vs. State Public Information Officer (2019(3) KLT 324) The information officer is bound to furnish the information as sought, if is not violative of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act...."
7. The Respondent submitted that the loan was sanctioned in the year 1983 and all contractual dues were paid, as such there is no latest valuation carried out and hence no report is available. He further submitted in respect of point no.2 that the availability of record is on account of their retention period and for point no.7, it was stated that the stakeholder is not the Appellant but some third party. At this point, it was observed that such inputs were neither placed on record in pursuance of the hearing notice by the CPIO nor did the reply of 19.08.2024 bear any such clarity. Therefore, the CPIO was strictly directed to place on record a detailed written submission to rebut the contentions contained in the second appeal and to tender clarity to the reply provided to the Appellant.
8. The Commission in pursuance of the hearing proceedings received the following submissions from the CPIO dated 15.10.2025 in respect of each point of the RTI Application:
Page 5 of 8For point no.1:- 'Latest Valuation copies not obtained by the branch. Since the account was closed through full recovery of contractual dues, obtention of latest valuation is not required.
Originally, loans were sanctioned on 18.11.1983 (More than 42 years back) on the security of personal guarantees, movables and mortgage of various properties in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Hyderabad.' For point no.2-: 'Bank is not aware of any such deposition made before the branch. Hence no such copy of disposition is available with the branch.' For point no.3-: 'No OTS has been sanctioned or requested in this account. They have made full payment of the contractual dues. No One-Time Settlement (OTS) has been reached, and full contractual dues has been paid by Shri. Aswini Kumar Sugandhi, S/o Kantilal Sugandhi.
As per the judgment in OS No. 84 of 2004, 35. In the court of the V. Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Ranga Reddy District, at L B Nagar dated 19th October 2005 Issue No.2:
Quote On issue No.1, I held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the rights, which D1 to D3 have to schedule properties. Therefore, practically the plaintiffs have stepped into the shoes of D1 to D3 in respect of the Schedule Properties. Therefore, there are 2 options available to the plaintiffs, one is that they may pay the due to D1 to D3 to the Bank (D4) and get the schedule properties free of charge. The second option is that after sale of the properties by the Recovery officer and after clearing the amounts due to the bank, the plaintiffs will be entitled to the balance amount, if any. Hence the plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction against the bank.
Unquote In the High Court For the State of Telengana At Hyderabad, dated 26.07.2024, for I.A Nos 1,2 and 3 of 2024 IN/AND Appeal Suit No 25 of 2006 has upheld the judgement under OS No 84 of 2004.' Page 6 of 8 For point no.4-: 'No OTS has been sanctioned or requested in this account. Hence no legal opinion is obtained for sanction of any OTS.' For point no.5-: 'No OTS request or OTS Sanction was made in this account.' For point no.6-: 'Full contractual dues were recovered as per the court order. Hence the question of OTS from any other party is not relevant.' For point no.7-: 'The Copy of the affidavit was filed by the Bank before the Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad in official capacity. The RTI applicant can establish his relationship with the case and can obtain certified copy by applying to the Court.'
9. Having perused the expanded reply of the CPIO, it is observed that no intervention is warranted in the matter except in respect of the reply provided to point no.7 of the RTI Application, where the CPIO is still not clear in their stance in terms of whether they seek to withhold the copy of the affidavit under any exemption clause of Section 8 of the RTI Act since the advice to the Appellant to obtain the record from elsewhere without clarifying if the said record is available with the bank or not is unwarranted.
Now, therefore, the CPIO is directed to send a copy of their detailed reply of 15.10.2025 to the Appellant after revising the reply therein provided to point no.7 of the RTI Application, by incorporating the available information or stating unavailability, if applicable, Alternatively, if the disclosure of the same attracts the exemptions of Section 8, the applicable clause shall be specified in the CPIO's reply and if the exempted categories of information can be redacted and remainder of the record can be parted with in consonance with Section 10 of the RTI Act, then to such extent, the CPIO shall provide the redacted information after specifying the exemption of Section 8 invoked for redacting the contents.
The above direction shall be complied with by the CPIO free of cost within 15 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
10. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Page 7 of 8Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 16.10.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Indian Overseas Bank, CPIO, Regional, Office Thiruvananthapuram, Regional Office, M. G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala-695001 2 R. Gopinathan Nair Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)