Mr.T. Muthukumar vs Indian Bank on 8 September, 2011

                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             Club Building (Near Post Office)
                           Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                  Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                         Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001511/SG/14479
                                                                Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001511/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                                :       Mr. T. Muthukumar,
                                                 41, Achipatty (post),
                                                 Pollachi-642002,
                                                 Coimbatore District.

Respondent                               :        Mr. T. Chanderashekharan
                                                  PIO & AGM
                                                  Indian Bank, Head office,
                                                  66, Rajaji Salai
                                                  Chennai - 600001

RTI application filed on           :             08/09/2010
PIO replied on                     :             23/09/2010
First Appeal filed on              :             28/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order on :             09/10/2010
Second Appeal received on          :             19/10/2010

                                                     Information Sought
1.Whether Current A/C has been opened in the name of Argosyan info tech India (p) Ltd. In your bank?
2. Has the A/C been opened as per Bank rules and regulations?
3. Who are the Directors of Argosyan info tech India (p) Ltd.?
4. When the A/C was opened, whether all the Directors came in presence and signed to open the A/C?
5. When the A/C was opened, did the bank receive the pan card no. of Argosyan info tech India (p) Ltd.?
6. Who were introducing the persons to open the Current A/C?
7. To start the Current A/C, did the bank get the signatures of the introducing persons and did the bank follow the
rules and regulations in the case of introducing persons and did it approve the introduction?
8. When the Current A/C of Argosyan info tech India (p) Ltd. was opened, did the Bank not receive the passed
resolution of the Directors?
9. Did the Bank check and finalise the correct names of the Directors and their signatures and addresses?
10. Did the Directors give their nominees?
11. Without nominees, did the Bank open the Current A/C?
12. Whether the Bank has received the copies of the ID cards and the proof of the Directors' addresses?
13. Before opening the Current A/C did the Bank not check the ID cards and addresses of the Directors?
14. As to pass the information please also tell us the date on which the Current A/C in question has been opened.
15. Please also let us know the date on which the cheque was given to Argosyan info tech (p) Ltd.?
16. It is also requested to pass information regarding the no. of cheques demanded by Argosyan company and
provide a copy of the same by the company.
17. Please let us know how many cheques had been given to Argosyan Firm to the Bank?
18. Whether the Bank had agreed and permitted to issue cheques to the firm?
19. Please inform the cheque i.e. from-to.
20. (a) Argosyan Info Tech India (P) Ltd.,
        No. 438, Kamarajan Street,
        Lakshmi Puram, Peelamedu Post,
        Coimbatore-4, Chirman A. Muralidharan.
    (b) Muralidharan,
        S/o M. Arthanari,
        No. 93, Rana Nagar,
        Bhavani, Erode District.
Whether        the     A/C      has      been      opened      with     the     above      mentioned      addresses?
If so, are cheques issued?
 21. If not, on which address the A/C is opened?
Further, to which address and to whom cheques are issued/given?

Reply of the PIO:
The Appellant has not provided any documentary proof of his relationship/connection to the above
A/C. There is no obligation on the part of the Banker to maintain the secrecy of its' customers' A/Cs
and it applies to the information sought by the Appellant which falls under the ambit of 'Commercial
Confidence', exempted under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act.

Grounds for the First Appeal:
The PIO refused to provide the required information to the Appellant.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
As informed by the Appellant that there is a criminal proceeding pending with the police authorities in
connection with the A/C of M/s Argosyan Info tech India (P) Ltd.; the information sought relating to
the cited account falls under

Ground of the Second Appeal:
The PIO refused to provide the required information to the Appellant basing that he has not stated his
connection with the bank account.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. T. Muthukumar on video conference from NIC-Coimbatore Studio;
Respondent: Mr. T. Chanderashekharan, PIO & AGM on video conference from NIC-Chennai Studio;

The appellant had sought information about the details of a bank account and the PIO has refused
to give the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act since details and
transactions of the customers held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity.

Decision:

The Appeal is disposed.

The information is exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
08 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (AM)