ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Mon, Jan 20, 2020
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Exemption >> Commercial Confidence etc..
Supreme Court(Commercial Confidence etc..)/ High Courts(Commercial Confidence etc..)
S.No. CIC CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
31 CIC/SH/A/2014/003098
(213.42 KB) pdf icon
25 Feb, 2016 Mahendra Kumar Vs. Dena Bank, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence the Commission held that the information as regarding all branches of the bank spread all over India and the collection of information sought by the Appellant would be a time consuming and laborious effort, that would disproportionately divert their resources from their day to day work. Therefore, we would not like to burden them with the task of collecting this information merely on account of the suspicion of the Appellant that some of the equipment sold in India, which he alleges was of substandard quality, might have been purchased by the Respondent Bank. We note that at point No.2, the Appellant sought the information regarding the data loaded on the magnetic strip Of ATM cards. We would refrain from directing the Respondents to provide this information, as it concerns the security features of their card.
32 CIC/CC/A/2015/001879-YA
(62.87 KB) pdf icon
19 Feb, 2016 N. K Sharma Vs. Rogrkela Steel Plant, Sundergarh

Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence. The Commission held that since the information could not have been denied to the deceased herself in the first place, the same could not be denied to her legal representative inasmuch the latter steps in the shoes of the former, both de facto & de jure. The Appellant being sole surviving member of the family of the deceased is no longer a stranger w.r.t. the information sought. The contention of the CPIO is misplaced. The CPIO to furnish certified copies of the ledger/ accounts concerning M/S SAMCO Industries.
33 CIC/CC/A/2014/002901-YA
(124.46 KB) pdf icon
15 Feb, 2016 Venkatesh Nayak VS. NTPC, Delhi

Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence. The appellant filed an RTI application and sought information regarding the Sampur Coal Power Project, Sri Lanka which is a private agreement between the NTPC and the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) with a built in confidentiality clause — the Commission upheld the stand of the public authority that disclosure of information sought may harm the commercial and intellectual interests of the JVA Company in Sri Lanka as well co promoters, Ceylon Electricity Board.
34 CIC/YA/A/2014/002449
(58.58 KB) pdf icon
08 Feb, 2016 Harish Kumar vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi

Section 8(1) (d) Commercial Confidence.The Commission held that it is of the opinion that the contention of the third party cannot be overlooked. It is also undisputed that the appellant has not substantiated his case of larger public interest nor of corruption and/ or violation of Court directives, particularly in the scenario when a monitoring committee has been already appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to oversee the public interest aspect. This Commission is not the appropriate authority to take action in that regard as such it does not find it appropriate in this case that commercially confidential information related to a third party should be provided to an information seeker, against express and specific objections.
35 CIC/SH/A/2015/001341
(313.25 KB) pdf icon
20 Jan, 2016 Rajiv Ram Nagar Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation limited, MumbaiRajiv Ram Nagar Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation limited, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence. The Commission held that if public authorities, involved in commercial dealings and faced with litigation/arbitration concerning contractual issues, are made to reveal their internal documents connected to the contractual issues at dispute, it would have the potential to harm their competitive position, attracting section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The invocation of section 8(1)(h) by the Respondents was not justified, however, the information sought, is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
36 CIC/SH/A/2014/002606
(210.27 KB) pdf icon
15 Jan, 2016 Kanwarjit Singh Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Chandigarh

Section 8(I)(d) Commercial Confidence. The Commission upheld the decision of the CPIO to deny the copy of the dealership agreement under section 8(1)(d) of the Act.
37 CIC/BS/A/2014/001310/7739
(48.12 KB) pdf icon
29 May, 2015 B. N. Singh Vs. CPIO & Assistant Director, ESIC

The appellant sought various information regarding a particular contractor. The PIO denied the information as it is personal in nature, relates to third party and if disclosed would cause unwanted invasion of his privacy and will also harm his competitive position and no public purpose has been demonstrated by the appellant to the disclosure.
The Commission held that the Information relating to the affairs of a private entity the disclosure of which can possibly have an adverse effect on the competitive position of the entity, is exempt under section 8(l)(d) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information relating to individuals and unincorporated entities. The basic protection from disclosure afforded by virtue of these statutory exemptions cannot be lifted or disturbed unléss the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in 'public interest'.
38 CIC/MP/A/2014/000529
(288.33 KB) pdf icon
31 Mar, 2015 Mahesh Chand Kukreti Vs. State Bank of India, Dehradun

The appellant sought information regarding loan details of M/s Shakti Plas International. The CPIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(d) & (e) of the RTI Act, the appellant preferred an appeal to the FAA stating that he wanted to know the loss suffered by the bank pertaing to loan account in question. They stated that section 44 of SBI Act casts an obligation on the Bank not to divulge any information relating to the affairs of its constituent. He also added that such information was also prohibited from disclosure under the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and under Chapter III A of collection and Furnishing of Credit Information under the RBI Act, 1934.

The Commission accepted the submissions made by the respondents and upheld their decision.
39 CIC/MP/A/2014/000926
(120.92 KB) pdf icon
31 Mar, 2015 Sanjay Kushwah Vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

The appellant sought information relating to deed of assignment executed between SBI and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. The CPIO denied the information under the provisions of section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party.

The commission held that information as sought for by the appellant cannot be provided to the appellant under the provisions of sections 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act, which would harm the competitive position of both the Banks viz. SBI and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., since no larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information the decision of the respondent is upheld
40 CIC/MP/A/2014/000535
(89.25 KB) pdf icon
06 Jan, 2015 Ashish Kumar Vs. SBI, Delhi

The appellant sought details of two bank accounts pertaining to his grandfather and grandmother.

CPIO and FAA maintained that the information will be provided to the legal heir, who produces valid proof of his/her being the legal heirship/successor of the deceased. At the time of hearing it was also informed that the appellant was not the nominee and that the information sought for was clearly third party information held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and involving commercial confidence and was exempt under the Act.

The CIC upheld the decision of the respondents.
41 CIC/VS/A/2013/900215/00583
(294.24 KB) pdf icon
02 Dec, 2013 Kutubuddin Ahmed vs Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kolkata

Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial Confidence

The Commission held that the information sought by the appellant is for protecting the Waqf property, hence the information should be provided. The respondent is directed to provide information sought by the appellant.
42 CIC/LS/A/2013/001362/SS
(221.55 KB) pdf icon
31 Oct, 2013 Altaf Ansari vs Steel Authority of India Ltd

The appellant filed RTI application seeking copy of MOU/agreement signed by and between SAIL & FSNL for the year 2011-12/2012-13 for the work related to handling of slag/processing of scrap at BCP /BCL/ISP /RSP /DSP /VISL/ ASP/SSP along with other - the CPIO denied the information under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Decision
The Commission held that the information as sought for by the appellant attracts the provisions of section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party.
43 CIC/DS/A/2012/002760
(89.43 KB) pdf icon
11 Oct, 2013 N.D. Dujari vs LIC of India Mumbai

The appellant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, LIC of India, Division Office-I, Jaipur seeking information related to investment made by LIC in the auction of ONGC share - the CPIO provided some of the requisite information and denied other on the ground of exemption given under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Decision
The Commission held that the Portfolio management is a commercial activity of the LIC of India which is governed by IRDA Rules within which the investment managers of the Corporation are bound to operate while taking investment decisions pertaining to public funds. Any disclosure in the matter of investment will amount to encroaching on matters of commercial confidence under section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act.
44 CIC/AT/A/2010/000946/DS/VS/4270
(354.88 KB) pdf icon
08 Oct, 2013 Kishanlal Mittal vs CPIO State Bank of India Mumbai

The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information such as details of minutes of meeting of board of directors of SBI from April, 2008 onwards- the CPIO had expressed inability to provide the information on the ground that this was exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act - the FAA agreed with the decision of the CPIO.
Decision
The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.
45 CIC/LS/A/2012/002379
(37.06 KB) pdf icon
04 Jan, 2013 M.C. Gupta Vs HPCL

The appellant sought certain information i.e. noting/ records on the basis of which minimum and maximum rates or transportation of petroleum products in Free Delivery Zone (FDZ) and beyond FDZ were prescribed – the public authority contended that the calculation of minimum and maximum rates has been done by an Expert Agency viz. KPMG, costing the company a consideration amount and it is the intellectual property of HPCL. If this information is disclosed, then HPCL will not be able to follow this model in regard to all future tenders. It is contended that the requested information is of commercial confidence to HPCL and cannot be disclosed under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act-

The Commission held that the information in-question is of commercial confidence. There is no infirmity in the decision of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority.
Total Case uploaded: 62