ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Sat, Jun 03, 2023
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Exemption >> Commercial Confidence etc..
Supreme Court(Commercial Confidence etc..)/ High Courts(Commercial Confidence etc..)
16 CIC/SH/A/2015/001705 CIC/SH/A/2015/002289
(260.75 KB) pdf icon
23 Nov, 2016 Anil Basu vs Central Bank of India, Kolkata

Section 8(1) (d) Commercial Confidence.

The Commission held that in so far as the locus-standi of the Appellant to seek the information on behalf of the guarantor, M/S Anup India Ltd., is concerned, the Commission notes that he is willing to provide a board resolution, authorizing him to get the information. After the decision of 14.3.2006 cited by the Respondents, the Commission has taken a number of decisions to the effect that the mere fact of a matter being sub-judice cannot become the ground of denial of information. In fact, Section of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure only such information as has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court. No such express forbidding by any court of law/tribunal has been mentioned by the Respondents- The information sought in this case is covered by the exemption granted under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
17 CIC/RK/A/2016/000884-AB
(695.46 KB) pdf icon
17 Nov, 2016 Bir Singh vs M/o Defence, Garrison Engineer (A/F)

Section 8(1)(d) — held that the information sought by the appellant is relating to approval of the execution of works and date(s) of completion of the work as is not convinced by the plea of the CPIO that disclosure of information would hamper the competitive position of the third party or commercial confidence, However, the reason for extension of the work may be given only if the reasons are available in the form of documents. In the case on hand, as discussed earlier, the issues raised by the and cannot be equated with the commercial interest of certain third larger public interest more and more information should be disclosed. Since, the participation in public auction should encourage greater transparency, it is not discrimination against any party.
18 CIC/VS/A/2015/002051+2052+2053-AB
(352.52 KB) pdf icon
19 Oct, 2016 Vishesh Abrol vs Integral Coach Factory, Chennai

Section 8(1) (d) Commercial Confidence.

The appellant filed RTI application and sought copy of the complete minutes of the meeting of the tender committee to decide on certain tender which was opened on 09.06.2014 for supply of rubber metal bonded items; name of the vendor to whom orders had been placed and the price at which the said tender was finalised.

The Commission directed the CPIO to mask technical specification(s), if any, which may exist in the tender committee minutes u/ s 10 of the RTI Act and to provide the rest of the said information in the form of certified copies, free of cost, under section 7(6) of the RTI Act to the appellant.
19 CIC/SH/A/2015/002212 CIC/SH/A/2016/000398 CIC/SH/A/2015/001493 CIC/SH/A/2016/000698
(284.11 KB) pdf icon
17 Oct, 2016 M. C. Gupta vs M/o. Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi & ors.

Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence.

The Commission held that a good deal of information regarding determination of the dealer commission has already been shared with the Appellant.

However, the Commission agreed with the Respondents that disclosure of detailed calculations of each element included in the dealer commission could harm their competitive position as such information could be used by their competitors. Therefore, there is justification in their denying this information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
20 CIC/MP/A/2016/000218
(88.89 KB) pdf icon
05 Aug, 2016 Aditye Goel Vs. State Bank of Travancore, Thiruvananthapuram

Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence the appellant filed RTI application and sought details of assignment of loan of Ind Synergy Ltd., including a copy of agreement entered by the respondent bank with the asset reconstruction company in the matter. He stated that the appellant was the promoter director of the said company and was also a guarantor for the loan availed by the company and therefore the exemption claimed by the respondents under section 8(1)(d) was not applicable to the information sought. The Commission held that the information in question has an element of "commercial confidence", disclosure of which would affect the competitive position of third party and hence the same cannot be disclosed in view of the exemption provided under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The appellant has also not established any larger public interest warranting disclosure of information.
21 CIC/CC/A/2014/000526/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/000521/SD
(148.67 KB) pdf icon
25 Jul, 2016 Dhiren Shah vs Indian Army

Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence

The Commission held that inspection had already been allowed to the appellant earlier therefore there is no reason to deny inspection at this stage. CPIO has not provided any ground on the basis of which section 8(1)(h) is attracted. Mere statement that the matter is sub-judice is no ground for seeking exemption under section 8(1) (h). The Commission directed the respondent to provide full inspection to the appellant of relevant records/ files.
22 CIC/BJ/A/2016/000022
(493.25 KB) pdf icon
18 Jul, 2016 Ashok Sahu vs Airports Authority of India

Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence.

The Commission held that the agreement entered into by an individual with the public authority for the common good of the citizens cannot be termed as commercial confidence as it is entered to cater to the interest of the public and cannot be denied.
23 CIC/MP/A/2016/000056 CIC/MP/A/2016/000532
(117.89 KB) pdf icon
30 Jun, 2016 N.K Aggarwal vs The New India Assurance Company Limited, Mumbai

Section 8(1) (d) Commercial Confidence

The Commission held that the information sought by the appellant in his instant RTI application pertains to his own claim and not of any third party, He has right to know the reasons, as available in the records of the insurance company, for repudiation of his claim as he is the one who has been 'adversely affected' by the decision of the insurance company. Therefore, the plea taken by the public authority that disclosure of information sought by the appellant would harm the competitive position of the public authority as third party does not hold good and cannot be sustained. Similarly, the claim of fiduciary relationship, which has been made by the respondents at this stage only, is not persuasive in view of the reasons stated above.

The Commission directed the CPIO to provide the information to the appellant as sought in his RTI application on payment of the requisite fee.
24 CIC/VS/A/2013/002118/SH
(335.94 KB) pdf icon
28 Jun, 2016 Nanik Premchand Rajwani vs Union Bank of India, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence.

The appellant filed an RTI application containing the following queries:
a) Details business mix of the bank for the months March and April 2013. (Daily figures of total deposits, total advances and total business mix).
b) Details of Restructured accounts which have subsequently turned NPA during three year period commencing from 1st April, 2011 to 31st March, 2013.
c) Details of action initiated by the bank against Bank Officials who have indulged in window dressing of the business mix parameters in past three years.
d) Details of action initiated against Bank officials for classification of accounts as Standard subsequently classified into NPA by Statutory / RBI auditors.
e) Details of action initiated against bank Officials/ Statutory Auditors classification of accounts as Standard subsequently classified into NPA by RBI Auditors.
The CPIO stated that the information was exempted from disclosure under sections 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, since its disclosure would prejudicially affect the economic interest of the Respondent Bank which is a "State" within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India. He claimed exemption from disclosure of information on point (a) under section 8(1)(d) also.

The Commission held that disclosure of the information concerning the daily business mix of a bank does not attract the exemptions from disclosure available under sections 8(I)(a) and (d) of the RTI Act and is in larger public interest. At the same time, such information regarding daily business mix should be given to an RTI applicant only in respect of a quarter, the business figures for which have already been made public in keeping with the statutory requirements. This would ensure that even as the information of daily business mix is made public for a particular period through the RTI route, the public also has before it the figures for the end of the quarter, put out by the bank in fulfilment of its statutory obligations. Accordingly, the CPIO of the Respondent Bank is directed to provide to the Appellant the information in response to point (a) of his RTI application With regard to the information sought at points (c) to (e) of the RTI application, no ground to question the submission of the Respondents that they do not maintain compiled information regarding action taken against their officers/ statutory auditors in respect of the specific misdemeanours mentioned at the above points. No need to interfere with the CPIO's response to these points.
25 CIC/MP/A/2016/000164
(47.01 KB) pdf icon
06 Jun, 2016 Ashwani Kumar vs Punjab National Bank, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence

The Commission held that the valuation of properties would entail commercial confidence and third party information which is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(d) and (j) of the RTI Act. Besides, no larger public interest was involved in disclosure of the information sought by the appellant.
26 CIC/SS/A/2014/000307
(504.28 KB) pdf icon
27 May, 2016 Rehmat Vs. Central Electricity Authority, New Delhi

Section 8(I)(d) — Commercial Confidence

The CPIO, NTPC stated that since the appellant couldn't gather information from NTPC directly, he resorted to access the same from CEA indirectly — the CPIO, CEA stated that the information sought is held by CEA being statutory regulator under a fiduciary relationship with NTPC. The Commission held that it is a settled principle of jurisprudence that anything which cannot be done directly, can't be permitted to be done indirectly. The present appeal is barred by principle of constructive res judicata.
27 CIC/VS/A/2013/001178/MP
(168.17 KB) pdf icon
27 May, 2016 S. S. Vohm Vs. Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai

Section 8(1) (d) — Commercial Confidence

The Commission relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 16.12.2015 wherein it was held that RBI has a statutory duty to uphold the interest of the public at large, the depositors, the country’s economy and the banking sector. Thus, RBI –ought .to act with transparency and not hide information that might embarrass individual banks. It is duty bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and disclose the information sought by the respondents. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide inspection reports/file notings for two years prior to 2012 in respect of Dhanalakshmi Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Bank and also two NBFCs viz. Muthoot Finance and Narayan Sriram Investments to the appellant.
28 CIC/CC/A/2015/004288-YA
(94.32 KB) pdf icon
29 Apr, 2016 S.K Ghosh vs Steel Authority of India Ed. (SAIL), Delhi

Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence.

The appellant sought details of premium paid to M/S National Insurance Company Limited and copy of original policy document for SAIL Group Medi-claim Scheme-2014 for retired employees and their spouses.

The Commission held that it finds merit in the contention advanced by the CPIO, however, ends of justice would be met if the document No. SAIL/Pers/ITB/&Med;/Medi-claim/2014 dated 19.12.2013 addressed to M/S National Insurance Company Limited is disclosed to the appellant after redacting exempted portions.
29 CIC/MP/A/2015/001933
(89.73 KB) pdf icon
18 Apr, 2016 Mahendra Dusa vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Hyderabad

Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence.

The Commission directed the CPIO to provide cadre strength for Secunderabad to the appellant for the years 2015-2016 and transfer this point to the CPIO, LIC of India, Hyderabad u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act for providing information directly to the appellant for providing the same information.
30 CIC/YA/A/2015/000739
(47.45 KB) pdf icon
17 Mar, 2016 Neeraj Kumar vs Coal India Limited, Kolkata

Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence.

The Commission held that the Respondent has sought to hold back information against only point 4 viz. the answer keys on the ground that the question bank is limited and is likely to be repeated in future.

The Commission finds no merit in the Respondent's contention because the examination in this case is for recruitment of Management Trainee (Environment) in Coal India Limited and questions are of no super specialty level nor exclusive so as to consider the question bank to be limited. Accordingly, the Commission directed the PIO to provide information.
Total Case uploaded: 64