Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing Mr.Narendra Bansal vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 13 January, 2014

Roopadevi M vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 17 December, 2018

investigation and was further strengthened by the Action Taken Report of the DGoV dated 30.08.2017 which was submitted by the Appellant himself before the Commission. While relying upon the decision of the Commission in CIC/AT/A/2007, 10 and 11(Shankar Sharma and Ors., vs. DGIT), CIC/AT/A/2007/007/00234 (K.S. Prasad vs SEBI) and CIC/DS/A/2013/000138-MP (Narender Bansal vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) it was stated that even though the CVC vide OM dated 12.05.2017 had advised for initiation of major penalty proceedings against the officer, it cannot be said that the case had reached finality in as much as the procedure had to be followed for initiating disciplinary action against the officer as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1985.
Central Information Commission Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arun Kumar Agrawal vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 22 March, 2017

The respondent, vide its written submission dated 10.03.2017 relied upon the orders of the CPIO and speaking orders of the FAA and elaborated the role of SEBI to initiate multiple proceedings/ processes against the entities/ persons for violation of various provisions of the SEBI Act. It was contended that during the process of investigation and related proceedings under the SEBI Act, a variety of information including information relating to commercial and business interests, documents involving strategic information are submitted by entities/ persons against whom investigations were being conducted by SEBI. It was submitted that such information were fiduciary in nature and disclosure of information may hamper a level playing field for the entities and may cause irreparable damage to the reputation of the entities and may further adversely affect the competitive position of the entities and hence exempt from disclosure under section 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent further submitted that mere submission of investigation report to the competent authority did not imply a completion of investigation process. It was explained that the proceedings under SEBI Act were in progress and the matter had not reached its conclusion. The respondent relied on several decision of the Commission in Shri Narender Bansal v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., CIC/DS/A/2013/000138/MP dated 13.01.2014, K.S. Prasad v. Amarjit Singh, CPIO, SEBI, CIC/AT/A/2007/00234 dated 11.12.2007 and Shankar Sharma v. Director of Income Tax and CPIO, CIC/AT/A/2007/007, 10 and 11 dated 10.07.2007 to submit that "investigation" appearing in section 8 (1) (h) has to be broadly interpreted. It was further submitted that the information was rightly denied under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 since at the time of filing of RTI application dated Page 4 of 10 19.08.2013, the matter was pending before the Hon'ble SAT. Similarly it was stated that at the time of filing RTI application dated 10.12.2014, the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and had not reached its conclusive end. It was also submitted that recovery proceedings had been inserted in SEBI Act, 1992 vide Securities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014 w.r.e.f., 18.07.2013. The respondent explained that information was received by SEBI in its fiduciary capacity and disclosure of the same would endanger the life or physical safety of the person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence hence the information sought was exempted from disclosure as per section 8 (1) (e) and section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005. On the issue of disclosure of investigation report and related documents, it was submitted that the relevant disclosable portion of the investigation report was already available in the public domain and reproduced in the Whole Time Member, SEBI's orders dated 03.03.2010 and Adjudication Officer, SEBI's order dated 14.02.2013. It was also stated that information was available with appellant about SEBI's stand since an affidavit was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in respect of Writ Petition no. 172/2015. It was submitted that due to non-payment of penalty imposed by the AO, enforcement proceedings including recovery proceedings have been initiated by SEBI hence disclosure of said information may impede the process of investigation. With regard to the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and the Commission relied upon by the appellant regarding its contention on section 8 (1) (h), the respondent submitted that the decisions were dealt with by the FAA vide its order dated 26.02.2015.
Central Information Commission Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next