Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Chief Public Information Officer and Deputy General Manager (KYC/CSCE), Indian Bank – Appellant
Versus
Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction assessment in writ petitions. (Para 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 2. disclosure of ots policy in public interest. (Para 4) |
| 3. publicizing bank policies facilitates recovery. (Para 5 , 14) |
| 4. importance of disclosing policies for borrowers. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's support for reserve bank guidelines. (Para 10 , 11 , 19) |
| 6. each bank has unique settlement policies. (Para 12 , 13 , 18) |
ORDER :
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
This Writ Petition has been filed questioning an order in Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2023/113217 passed by the 1st respondent, Central Information Commission at New Delhi.
2. Even before proceeding into merits of the Writ Petition, the Court is under an obligation to answer one of the contentions raised on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents namely, that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition. It is contended that a similar order had been passed with respect to the same issue by the Central Information Commissioner and the Consortium of Banks similar to the petitioner bank had challenged the same by filing a Writ Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It is therefore contended that this Writ Petition is not maintainable within
Internal banking policies regarding loan settlements are exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, while general schemes must be publicized for public interest.
The court held that while banks should disclose general terms of One Time Settlement policies, detailed internal policies are not subject to disclosure under the Right to Information Act, safeguardin....
The court ruled that internal bank policies for compromise settlements need not be published, affirming the learned Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition.
(1) There is no provision in Supreme Court Rules for filing any application for recall of judgment of this Court. Applications filed for clarification, modification or recall are often only a camoufl....
Borrowers cannot claim one-time settlement as a matter of right; financial institutions retain discretion to grant or deny OTS based on public interest and eligibility criteria.
Right to information – RBI is entitled to issue directions to petitioners/Banks to disclose information even with regard to individual customers of Bank.
Attempt to resolve the conflict and disharmony between these aspects is evident in exceptions and conditions on access to information set out in sections 8 to 11 of Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
