Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.45 seconds)G. Chinnathambi vs The Tamil Nadu Information Commission on 2 December, 2020
In this regard attention of the appellant is drawn towards
judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, in case titled G. Chinnathambi V.
Tamil Nadu Information Commission and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 11087.
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Thalappalam Ser.Coop.Bank Ltd.& Ors vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 October, 2013
In this case, the Hon'ble Court had relied on the case titled Thalappalam Service
Cooperative Bank Limited case i.e., (2013) 16 SCC 82, and held that the burden
of proof to show that a particular body is owned, controlled or substantially
financed or a non-Government organization is substantially financed directly or
indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government, would lie on
the shoulder of the Information Seeker. In the instant appeal, the appellant had
not laid down any proof to substantiate that the said BEDF is owned, controlled
or substantially financed, directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the
appropriate Government. Hence, the Commission finds that the respondent
gave an appropriate reply to the appellant for point no. 4.
Adiwasi Vividha Karyakari Sahakari ... vs State Information Commissioner State ... on 4 January, 2019
6. The Respondent submitted, that they had provided copy of ledger of NCUI
payment for point no.3; number of laptops given to officers, expenditure of
those laptops to the appellant. The respondent also submitted, that they had
replied to the point no. 5 vide letter dated 28.07.2025 and provided the available
numerical figures to the appellant. The respondent further submitted, that the
said Basmati Export Development Foundation (BEDF) does not come under the
definition of public authority as defined U/s 2(h) of the RTI Act, and they had
informed the same to the appellant vide letter dated 28.08.2025. The
respondent elaborated that, the BEDF does not receive substantial financial
support from the Government and hence, it does not come under the definition
of public authority. The respondent relied on the case of Thalappalam Service
Cooperative Bank Ltd. V. State of Kerala & Ors. (2013) 16 SCC 82; Adiwasi Vividha
Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. V. State Information Commissioner and Anr.,
2019 SCC Online Bom 1068; Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of
Chemical Biology & Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 111; G. Chinnathambi v. Tamil Nadu
Information Commissioner, 2020 SCC Online Mad 11087; President, Madhanam
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society v. State Information
Commissioner & Ors. 2024 SCC Online Mad 1926, to support their contention.
Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute Of Chemical Biology & ... on 16 April, 2002
6. The Respondent submitted, that they had provided copy of ledger of NCUI
payment for point no.3; number of laptops given to officers, expenditure of
those laptops to the appellant. The respondent also submitted, that they had
replied to the point no. 5 vide letter dated 28.07.2025 and provided the available
numerical figures to the appellant. The respondent further submitted, that the
said Basmati Export Development Foundation (BEDF) does not come under the
definition of public authority as defined U/s 2(h) of the RTI Act, and they had
informed the same to the appellant vide letter dated 28.08.2025. The
respondent elaborated that, the BEDF does not receive substantial financial
support from the Government and hence, it does not come under the definition
of public authority. The respondent relied on the case of Thalappalam Service
Cooperative Bank Ltd. V. State of Kerala & Ors. (2013) 16 SCC 82; Adiwasi Vividha
Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. V. State Information Commissioner and Anr.,
2019 SCC Online Bom 1068; Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of
Chemical Biology & Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 111; G. Chinnathambi v. Tamil Nadu
Information Commissioner, 2020 SCC Online Mad 11087; President, Madhanam
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society v. State Information
Commissioner & Ors. 2024 SCC Online Mad 1926, to support their contention.
1