Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

“Central Information Commission Upholds SBI’s Denial to Disclose Details of Due Diligence in Loan Sanctioning, Cites Fiduciary Relationship”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Central Information Commission (CIC) today upheld the decision of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the State Bank of India, refusing to disclose details regarding who carried out due diligence in sanctioning a loan to M/s Priyadarshi Motors Pvt Ltd. The CIC, presided over by Information Commissioner Saroj Punhani, cited the fiduciary relationship as the primary ground for denying access to the said information.

In the landmark decision, the Commission observed, “The CPIO has appropriately denied the personal details who carried out due diligence of the above-said property for sanctioning of loan to M/s Priyadarshi Motors Pvt Ltd, which not only contains the elements of personal information of third party which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act but also held/available in the bank under fiduciary capacity and thus, attracted exemption clause of Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act.”

The Appellant, Rahul Kumar Singh, had approached the CIC after being dissatisfied with the responses of the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA). He argued that the denial of information led him to suffer financial losses as the property in question was leased by him to the firm M/s Priyadarshi Motors Pvt Ltd.

The Commission’s decision also referenced previous judgments of the Supreme Court, underlining the fiduciary relationship between the bank and its client. It drew attention to the clause of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act which states that disclosing information could “endanger the life or physical safety of any person.”

Today’s ruling sets a precedent in matters of disclosing sensitive financial and personal information under the RTI Act and reiterates the protective boundaries laid down by law.

Date of Decision: 31/08/2023

RAHUL KUMAR SINGH vs State Bank Of India

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Rahul_Kumar_Vs_SBI_31_AUG_2023_CIC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News