Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing Ms Durgesh Kumari vs Income Tax Department on 26 August, 2011

Mrindar Pal Singh vs Gnctd on 4 June, 2015

(i) Whether, in view of the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, the matter can be said to  be under prosecution in terms of section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act; and (ii) If it is held that the  matter is still under prosecution, whether disclosure of requested information would impede the  process of such prosecution, as contemplated u/s 8 (1) (h). 4   .   Full   bench   of   the   commission   in   the   case   of   Smt   Durgesh   Kumari   Vs   Income   tax  department   in   the   case   of   Smt.   Durgesh   Kumari   v.   Income   tax   department  [CIC/LS/A/2010/000685] dated 26.08.2011 had observed as follows :
Central Information Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrsudershan Kumar Abrol vs Department Of Financial Services on 22 September, 2014

8. The   respondent   also   submitted   CIC's   order   in   the   case  Smt. Durgesh Kumari Vs. Income Tax Department dated 26/8/2011  (CIC/LS/A/2010/000685) that "..it   is   common   place   that   the   word   'prosecution',   as  occurring   in   section   8   (1)   (h),   means   and   implies  initiation   and   continuation   of   criminal   proceedings   in  the   competent   court.   Termination   of   proceedings   in   the  trial  court can not mean conclusion of proceedings  when  this   very   issue   has   been   agitated   before   a   higher  judicial forum (High Court in the present case) either by  the   State   or   by   the   accused.   In   the   premises,   we   hold  that   the   case   is   still   under   'prosecution'   in   terms   of  section 8 (1) (h) of the Act..."
Central Information Commission Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

The respondent apart from the afore-mentioned decisions, further relied upon the decisions of the Commission in Smt. Durgesh Kumari v. Income Tax Department dated 26.08.2011, Shri Vinod Kumar Jain v. Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, New Delhi dated 20.07.2011, Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal v. SEBI, CIC/SM/A/2012/000196 dated 28.11.2014 and Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal v. SEBI, CIC/SM/A/2013/000834/MP dated 19.12.2014 in support of its contention under section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Central Information Commission Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr.Dhirendra Kumar Jha vs Cbdt on 8 December, 2011

7. Appellant, on the other hand argued in favour of nondisclosure of  the   requested   information   to   the   appellant   on   the   grounds   that   the  departmental disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case instituted by  the   CBI   were   yet   not   concluded   and   are   pending   and   disclosure   of  information   at   this   stage   would   be   detrimental   to   the   Department.   He  stated that disclosure would have vide ramification as the appellant would  then know the line of investigation and would try to influence/impede the  process   and   being   premature   would   be   injurious   to   the   process   of  investigation.   Appellant   places   reliance   on   these   decisions   of   the  Commission   particularly   in   the   case   of   Smt   Durgesh   Kumari   versus  Income Tax Department dated 26 August 2011 and Shri C Seetharamaiah  versus  Commissionerate  of  Customs  and  Central  Excise  dated  7   June  2010.
Central Information Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrsudhir Kumar Jain vs Department Of Financial Services on 29 February, 2016

The respondents also relied upon the full bench decision of the Commission dated 26.08.2011 in the matter of Durgesh Kumari Vs. Income Tax Department in case No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000685 in which the Commission held, "To sum up, we hold that the present matter is still under 'prosecution' and the disclosure of requested information would impede the process of prosecution in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Hence, in our opinion, the decision of CPIO and FAA do not call for any interference. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed." Further, the respondents vide letter No. 25/1/2015/RTI/Vig dated 19.02.2016 confirmed from the CBI regarding the cases pending against the appellant. It has been informed by the CBI that out of two cases against Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain, one case is under investigation while the other is under trial.
Central Information Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr.Md Anis vs Cbdt on 21 September, 2012

7. The Commission finds that this issue has been exhaustively dealt with by a division bench of the Commission in the case of Smt Durgesh Kumari vs Income Tax department (file no.CIC/LS/A/2010/000685 dt 26.8.11) wherein it had been held that disclosure of information would impede the process of prosecution and that the CrPC "provides for fair trial in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Hence, in the premises, the request of the appellant for a copy of the file in which the sanction for prosecution was processed, is difficult to appreciate".
Central Information Commission Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr S K Aggarwal vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 26 February, 2014

4. Aggrieved   by   the   CPIO's   reply,   the   Appellant   filed   an   appeal   dated  22.02.2013 before the Appellate Authority which the Appellate Authority disposed of  vide   order   dated   20.03.2013   upholding   that   the   CPIO's   decision.   He   also,   in  support, cited the decision of the Commission in Smt. Durgesh Kumar v. Income  Tax Department.
Central Information Commission Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrajay Singh vs Ministry Of Defence on 13 March, 2014

6. The Commission in its order dt 26.8.11 (Smt Durgesh Kumari Vs Income Tax department - appeal no.CIC/LS/A/2010/000685) had observed that if the process of prosecution is ongoing, provisions of Section 8(1)(h) would be attracted and hence the information sought is exempt from disclosure. In the light of the above orders of the Commission, the request for copies of findings/opinion is declined.
Central Information Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mra D Nargolkar vs Ministry Of Defence on 26 March, 2014

6. The Commission in its judgement dt 26.8.11 (CIC/LS/A/2010/000685) in the case of Smt Durgesh Kumari Vs Income Tax Department has held that the process 1 of prosecution is a continuing process which can be said to be over only when all judicial remedies have been fully exhausted. In view of the above, we find the response of PIO in denying information as per Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act in order except point no.10.
Central Information Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next