Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 280 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Reserve Bank Of India vs Jayantilal N. Mistry on 16 December, 2015

Girish Mittal vs Reserve Bank Of India on 13 July, 2023

41. The Commission has already outlined the deficiency in the conduct of the CPIO/FAA while hearing such matters and hence is of the opinion that due care has to be taken by according opportunity of personal hearing and making reasoned order with reference to the objections in the hands of the CPIO and later in the hands of FAA, if any appeal is preferred. Hence, the CPIO will be required to adjudicate such RTI applications in the light of the observations of the Commission afresh. The Commission also expects that the CPIO will take view on various objections filed by the Banks and Financial Institutions and submissions made by applicant to reach the decision in favour or against redaction of various parts of the report on case to case basis. He has to factor the observation of Hon'ble 9 Supreme Court in Jayantilal Mistry case and other relevant judgments, some of which have been referred in this order as well. Hence, with these observations the orders passed by the CPIO and FAA in these matters are set aside and the cases are being remanded to the CPIO for adjudication afresh. (Emphasis Supplied)
Central Information Commission Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Punhani - Full Document

S Dinesh vs Reserve Bank Of India on 29 September, 2023

3. The objections made by the bank to the disclosures proposed in the notice dated February 22, 2022 have been examined and duly considered. With respect to the Writ Patton filed by the bank, the bank has not produced any stay order for non-disclosure of information pertaining to the bank. The Honourable Supreme Court in its Order dated December 16, 2015 in TP No. 91 of 2015 (Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry), restricted the scope of the exemption under section 8(1)(a) to be very limited and may not be relied upon as a matter of course. Similarly, it refused to accept that there is fiduciary relationship between RBI and the banks while it is acting as a supervisor/regulator in furtherance to statutory provisions.
Central Information Commission Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Punhani - Full Document

Shashank Raj (Icici Bank Limited) vs Reserve Bank Of India on 6 May, 2022

12. The counsel for IDFC Bank Ltd. and Axis Bank Ltd. submitted that the bank prima facie raised its objections to the clubbing of the captioned matters and listing them for hearing on 30th March 2022 along with ICICI Bank's Appeal. The appellant inter alia submitted that they were not aware about the facts and circumstances involved in the ICICI Bank's Appeal, or for that matter in the appeals of the other banks and financial institutions. The facts and circumstances involved in the captioned Appeals may be entirely different from that of IDFC Bank's Appeal. In fact, the nature of information sought in ICICI Bank's Appeal and the captioned matters were highly different since the inspection reports prepared by RBI, in relation to each bank, were based on the information pertaining to the respective individual bank, and therefore, information contained in such inspection reports would highly vary from bank to bank. Moreover, the questions of law, submissions and/or other objections of IDFC FIRST Bank might differ from that of ICICI Bank's Appeal. The appellant bank inter alia argued that the information sought by the RTI application Shri Girish Mittal was exempted from disclosure under the provisions of section 8 (1) (a), (d), (h) and (j) of the RTI Act; and that the Supreme Court's judgment in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry Page 8 of 37 &Anr.[(2016) 3 SCC 525] did not deal with the exemption under section 8 (1)
Central Information Commission Cites 70 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

R V Sahasrabuddhe vs Reserve Bank Of India on 25 August, 2023

The supervisory process (action In respect of RBI inspection reports of Cosmos CBL and Saraswat CBL for the financial year 2019-2020 is not yet complete. Disclosure of such information at this juncture Is considered premature in terms of pare 77 of the Honorable Supreme Court Judgment dated December 16. 2015 in 'Reserve Bank of India vs Jayantilal Mistry Case' (2016(3) SCC525).
Central Information Commission Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Punhani - Full Document

Ms. Priyam Mittal vs Reserve Bank Of India on 13 July, 2023

41. The Commission has already outlined the deficiency in the conduct of the CPIO/FAA while hearing such matters and hence is of the opinion that due care has to be taken by according opportunity of personal hearing and making reasoned order with reference to the objections in the hands of the CPIO and later in the hands of FAA, if any appeal is preferred. Hence, the CPIO will be required to adjudicate such RTI applications in the light of the observations of the Commission afresh. The Commission also expects that the CPIO will take view on various objections filed by the Banks and Financial Institutions and submissions made by applicant to reach the decision in favour or against redaction of various parts of the report on case to case basis. He has to factor the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayantilal Mistry case and other relevant judgments, some of which have been referred in this order as well. Hence, with these observations the orders passed by the CPIO and FAA in these matters are set aside and the cases are being remanded to the CPIO for adjudication afresh. (Emphasis Supplied)
Central Information Commission Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Punhani - Full Document

S Dinesh vs Reserve Bank Of India on 29 September, 2023

(j) of the Act. The information recorded in the Document was hence requested to be considered in toto and not in an abstract/standalone form-The same does not seem to have been done. C. The public disclosure to any applicant who may have vested interests in the Document received pursuant to the RTI application has the potential to create panic and spread misinformation. Such Information is thus exempt under Section 8 of the RTI Act and disclosure whereof would not serve any larger public interest. Rather, disclosure of such Documents would adversely affect the position of the banks, including the Appellant bank in a highly competitive banking sector in our country. D. As has been detailed above, pursuant to the ratio in Jayantilul N. Mistry case and the Girish Mittal case, RBI disclosed complete RARS, of the Appellant Bank for the years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, without complying with the provisions of the RTI Act or the principles of natural justice, which actions are completely arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Appellant thus apprehends that the same may be done in the instant case/as regards the instant Applicant also."
Central Information Commission Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Punhani - Full Document

Amita Mittal vs Reserve Bank Of India on 14 March, 2024

9. As regards the Inspection Reports/ RAR of HDFC Bank for FY 2020-21 and Inspection Reports/ RAR of YES Bank for FY 2019-20 and 2020-21, CPIO, RBI has informed that supervisory action in the matter is not yet complete, the disclosure of information at this stage is considered premature in terms of Para 77 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Reserve Bank of India vs. Jayantilal Mistry [2016 (3) SCC 525] and therefore, the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, it is submitted that the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgement had directed the Reserve Bank to provide the information pertaining to banks/ financial institution under RTI Act in order to maximize public interest, but not without following the procedure contained in Section 11 of the RTI Act. At the same time, the Court has also observed that the excessive use of the right to information in case of national economic interest etc. may lead to harm, and emphasized on the time to release the information...
Central Information Commission Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Samir Sardana vs Canara Bank on 5 November, 2021

5.2. The respondent while defending their case and while endorsing their reply dated 07.06.2019 inter alia submitted that the complainant had further raised fresh queries such as suit filed data was not part of the original RTI application. The respondent submitted that the appellant had highlighted SEBI LODR, contractual terms and filing suit for substantiating his claim that NPA borrowers were not covered under the provisions of section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. However, the SEBI LODR imposed certain obligations on the company which was listed in stock exchange for enclosing certain facts for the benefit of investors and those obligations could not be treated as the obligation of the public authority/CPIO under RTI Act. Further, incorporating a clause in the loan agreement would not give any right to the public/citizen to know the details of the transactions pertaining to the customers of the bank. With regard to suit filed accounts and willful defaulters, the respondent submitted that it was already available in the public domain at www.cibil.com. Further, the complainant had himself accepted that the information was already available in the public domain i.e. websites of the banks. Therefore, it was not required to be disclosed to the applicants individually under the RTI Act. The respondent further submitted that the case cited by the complainant in Reserve Bank of India vs Jayantilal N. Mistry was not applicable to the subject matter in the present case. In the above mentioned case, the Supreme Court had held that the information held by RBI in the capacity as regulator could not treated as personal Page 11 of 25 information of third party or as information held in fiduciary relationship, hence, exemption under section 8 (1) (e) and (j) were not applicable in that case. However, in the present case the subject matter pertains to the information of the customers which was held by the banks in fiduciary capacity. The fiduciary relationship did not exist between the banks and the RBI, however, it very much exists between the banks and its customers.
Central Information Commission Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S Chandra - Full Document

Ashish Mahajan, vs Reserve Bank Of India on 10 December, 2021

5.3 Furthermore, the respondent contended that in the Hon'ble Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No (s) 2342 of 2019 in TC (C) No. 91/2015 (Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry &Anr.) which was substantial in determination of the issues raised in this matter was last heard by the Apex Court on 09.04.2021 and that the judgment was reserved. Subsequently, aforesaid Miscellaneous Application was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Central Information Commission Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Chandra - Full Document

Shashank Raj (Icici Bank Limited) vs Reserve Bank Of India on 16 March, 2022

That vide a detailed order, dated 28.04.2021, passed in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry & Anr. He further submitted that the W.P. (C) No. 1159/2019 and W.P.(C) No. 1469/2019 filed by the banks had been de-tagged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order, dated 09.04.2021. The said writ petitions are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and were last listed on 17.08.2021.
Central Information Commission Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - N K Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next