Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

“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