ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Sat, Jul 20, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Exemption >> Fiduciary Relationship
Supreme Court(Fiduciary Relationship)/ High Courts(Fiduciary Relationship)
S.No. CIC CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
1 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/103744
(58.11 kB) pdf icon
19 Apr, 2018 Ashok Pandit Vs CPIO, SBI, Khagaria, Bihar

ISSUE : The applicant sought the total number of KCC loans sanctioned from 5/8/16 till date along with the certified copy of the Land Possession Certificate and land receipts. No information was provided by the CPIO.
DECISION : Total number of KCC loans sanctioned for the period requested for to be given. However, LPC and land receipts are personal information of the third parties i.e the borrowers which is held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity the disclosure of which is exempted under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act,2005.
2 CIC/BKOBD/A/2016/310715/SH
(280.57 kB) pdf icon
15 Feb, 2017 Ashwani Kumar vs Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that it do not agree with the Respondents that disclosure of the information, in the manner and with the exclusions mentioned by the Appellant in his application, would breach the bank's fiduciary relationship with their customers, because neither the identity of the borrower nor the address of the property is to be revealed. Further, the Commission agreed with the respondents that compilation of the information for the period 1.42003 to 31.32008 from the files of various loan accounts in the branches of the bank would be a time consuming task, which would disproportionately divert the resources of the bank from its day to day work. The relationship between the bank and the valuer who prepares market evaluation report in respect of properties to be mortgaged to the bank is also one where both the parties have to act in a fiduciary capacity, treating the other as the beneficiary. Thus, the bank would be within its rights to expect that the valuer would not disclose the information given by the bank to him for preparation of an evaluation report. The information sought by the Appellant, even in the form and with the exclusions mentioned by him, is exempted from disclosure under sections 8(I)(e) of the RTI Act.
3 CIC/SH/A/2016/000084
(213.11 kB) pdf icon
03 Feb, 2017 Satish Goel vs Bank of Maharashtra, Pune

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that in signing the agreement with the bank, the asset reconstruction company has clearly placed trust in them to protect its interests which would be hurt if the bank were to reveal the information sought in the RTI application. Therefore, this information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act also. No larger public interest has been established for disclosure of the information.
4 CIC/SH/A/2015/001739
(205.76 kB) pdf icon
02 Feb, 2017 J. B. S. Bedi vs Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that it do not agree with the submission that a fiduciary relationship no longer exists between the bank and M/S North East Trading Corporation because their account stands closed. The fiduciary relationship does not end with the closure of the account in respect of the information/documents coming into the possession of the bank and transactions conducted in the account during the period when it was in existence. Therefore, the information concerning the FDRs sought by the Appellant is exempted from disclosure under sections 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Further, a part of the information concerns the legal opinion given by the advocate of the bank to the bank. This information too is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) because of the fiduciary relationship existing between the bank and its advocate.
5 CIC/SD/A/2016/000021
(93.10 kB) pdf icon
23 Jan, 2017 G S Ghuman vs HQs 8, Mountain Division

Section 8(1) (e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 10 Severability. The Commission held that the CPIO cannot deny the information as a whole to the Appellant on the grounds of section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. It is not disputed that the information sought also relates to third parties, which makes the application of section 8(1)(e) appropriate, but limited to the third parties only. The parts of the information which pertain to the Appellant's client (Gunner Bikramjit Singh) should be provided to him. In this regard section 10 of the RTI Act can be invoked to severe the records adequately before providing the information to the Appellant. The reliance of the CPIO on section 8(I)(h) of the RTI Act is summarily rejected as the pending disciplinary proceeding against other officers cannot be deemed to be a blanket exemption since the proceedings against the Appellant's client has been concluded and any disclosure of information in his respect will not in any way impede further prosecution of offenders.
6 CIC/SH/A/2016/000107
(130.98 kB) pdf icon
20 Jan, 2017 Jai Shankar Kumar vs Allahabad Bank, Muzaffarpur

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the bank holds the information concerning the accounts of its customers, including the documents submitted by them, in a fiduciary capacity and such information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Since such documents can contain information of a personal nature concerning the third party customer, such information is also exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure to him of the information sought by him. His personal dispute with the third party customer of the bank cannot be treated as the ground of larger public interest. The Commission upheld the decision of the CPIO to deny the information under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
7 CIC/SB/A/2016/000129
(57.80 kB) pdf icon
19 Jan, 2017 Dinesh Singh Bansal vs Union Public Service Commission

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 8(1)(d) Commercial . The Commission held that since the recruitment process is technically not complete, the information sought for by the appellant cannot be provided.
8 CIC/VS/A/2015/001284
(59.22 kB) pdf icon
05 Jan, 2017 Satish Malik vs Northern Railway, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship — the Commission relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 499/2012 dated 09.112012 Union of India & Ors. v Col. V.K. Shad, .wherein, it was held that the file notings and opinions of the JAG branch are information, to which, a person taking recourse to the RTI Act can have access, provided it is available with the concerned public authority. Provision of section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act is not restriction for Government to provide information in the interest of public. Hence, the file notings & correspondence of case file, letters of complaint, record after redacting the names of officers involved in the decision making process can be disclosed. The Commission directed the respondents to provide to the appellant a copy of handwriting expert report in the appellant's case after redacting the names of officers involved in giving report.
9 CIC/SH/A/2015/001973
(221.70 kB) pdf icon
03 Jan, 2017 Sohan Lal Saharan vs CPIO Oriental Bank of Commerce

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that the bank holds the information the accounts of its borrowers in a fiduciary capacity and it is exempted from disclosure to third parties under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act in the absence of a finding of larger public interest- The appellant cannot be treated as a party to the accounts in question only because he gave a legal opinion as panel advocate. He has also not established any larger public interest for disclosure to him of the information sought by him in breach of the bank's fiduciary relationship with its customers.
10 CIC/VS/A/2015/903080-AB
(550.58 kB) pdf icon
29 Dec, 2016 Ashok Mishra vs M/o IHQ (Army)

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that the findings, opinion, recommendations, directions, objections and observations are all related to the appellant and 12 other military persons, however, they were charged for the same offence.

Therefore, the information is eminently disclosable and the PIO shall mask the name and designation of the officers as per section 10 of the RTI Act and provide complete information to the appellant.
11 CIC/MP/A/2016/000821
(41.95 kB) pdf icon
21 Dec, 2016 Nalin Tayal vs State Bank of India, Chandigarh

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 8(1)(g). Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person.

The Commission held that that copies of file notings pertaining to de-panelment of M/S. GATS Financial Reconstructors Ltd. cannot be provided under the provisions of sections 8(1)(e) and (g) which is held by the respondent authority in its fiduciary relationship and disclosure of which would identify the authorities, who might have opined/made recommendations etc. and would endanger their life and physical safety. Moreover, no larger public interest warrants disclosure of this information to the appellant. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.
12 CIC/VS/A/2015/000777
(62.62 kB) pdf icon
20 Dec, 2016 Shailendra Kumar Yadav vs Rail Wheel Plant Stores, Saran

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship

The Commission held that there is no confidentiality in the documents sought by the appellant. The CPIO is not justified in taking the defense under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The sought for document is a public document. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant (a) copy of authorisation letter; and (b) copy of Power of Attorney submitted by M/S Pacific Road Carrier which was executed in favour of the appellant.
13 CIC/MP/A/2016/001266
(32.40 kB) pdf icon
15 Dec, 2016 Ashok Jain vs Securities & Exchange Board of India, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The appellant, while stating that the regulator, Forward Market Commission (FMC), had ordered forensic audit of CPR Commodities Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, sought the details of action taken on this forensic audit report and the file notings and related correspondence with MCX and Member. CPR Commodities Services Pvt. Ltd. in connection with the forensic audit. He also asked for the forensic audit report along with recommendations made to MCX by Chairman and Director (Vig), Dr Atul Verma, of FMC in connection with the forensic audit report.

The Commission upheld the submissions of the respondents regarding the strategic nature and confidentiality of the forensic audit report. The information cannot be provided in terms of section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision of the respondents.
14 CIC/SH/A/2015/001619
(162.58 kB) pdf icon
05 Dec, 2016 Rajvir Singh vs IDBI Bank Limited, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary.

The Commission held that the bank holds the information concerning the accounts of its customers in a fiduciary capacity. Therefore, such information is exempted from disclosure to third parties under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, in the absence of a finding of larger public interest. The above position does not change merely because an account belongs to an institution and not to an individual. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure of the information to him. As stated by the bank, they would be willing to change the names of authorised signatories only if the society provides to them a resolution to that effect, passed as per the relevant rules and regulations applicable to such societies.
15 CIC/MP/A/2016/001307
(23.80 kB) pdf icon
29 Nov, 2016 Y. Akbar Ahmed v State Bank of India, Chennai

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship — Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information — the Commission held that no commercial confidence is involved in giving the rent details and the period of lease, the documents relating to lease deed/sale deed/rent deed reported to containing personal information of the landlord could not be provided to him in view exemption provided u/ s 8(I)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA to that extent.
Total Case uploaded: 84