Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.76 seconds)
Farah Deeba vs National Cadet Corps (Ncc) on 20 October, 2020 cites

The Cpio, Supreme Court Of India, Tilak ... vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr. on 2 September, 2009

For para 3(c) of the RTI Application, the then CPIO has not invoked the appropriate exemption clause for denying the information sought for therein. The said para seeks the leave details of other employees which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. This observation is in line with a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil 3 Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
Delhi High Court Cites 77 - Cited by 2336 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Canara Bank vs C.S. Shyam . on 31 August, 2017

For para 3(c) of the RTI Application, the then CPIO has not invoked the appropriate exemption clause for denying the information sought for therein. The said para seeks the leave details of other employees which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. This observation is in line with a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil 3 Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 1915 - A M Sapre - Full Document

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Cen.Information Commr.& Ors on 3 October, 2012

For para 3(c) of the RTI Application, the then CPIO has not invoked the appropriate exemption clause for denying the information sought for therein. The said para seeks the leave details of other employees which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. This observation is in line with a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil 3 Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 3119 - Full Document
1