- NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
- shows RTI
- RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
- 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
- The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
- Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
- Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'drt'.
Found 7 results
Atul Patankar posted a topic in RTI in MediaAs reported by C Unnikrishnan at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 21 September 2009 MUMBAI: Although a Union finance minister had once described the rising non- performing assets (NPA) of nationalised banks as a loot, public sector banks are unwilling to divulge the names of those who have defaulted on huge loans. None of the 25 public sector banks who were asked to name big defaulters under the Right to Information did so. Sixteen of these banks merely gave figures of the outstandings while nine refused to even reply. According to information provided under RTI, the banks have written off over Rs 15,000 crore in the period 2003-2008. The banks reasoned that furnishing the names is not in public interest and is an invasion into the privacy of borrowers. The RTI application was filed by Borivili resident Richie Shoaib Sequeira on the directions of the Bombay high court. On Thursday, chief justice Swatanter Kumar and Ajay Khanwilkar, while hearing his PIL, directed that notices be issued to Union of India, RBI and other banks. The court also directed Sequeira to make the state crime investigation department a party to the PIL. The matter will come up for hearing on October 15. At the last hearing, the HC had asked Sequeira to invoke RTI or any other law to gather details from the banks. Sequeira had filed a PIL, saying there has been no strict vigil by the finance ministry and RBI while writing off loans by the banks and the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) had failed to recover the debts. The RBI, finance ministry, law ministry and DRT have said that in their replies they have no records of the write-offs and one-time settlements between the borrowers and banks. The PIL also said that no rules have been framed by the finance ministry while writing off loans by the banks, which smacks of corruption. Some of the banks in their replies have said that the write-off is done in accordance with the guidelines framed by the board of directors. During a debate in the Lok Sabha in 2002, the then finance minister Jaswant Singh had described the NPA menace as a loot. The banks which refused to disclose details about the defaulters include SBI its associates, Union Bank, Bank of Baroda, Central Bank of India, Dena Bank, Andhra Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Syndicate Bank and Indian Overseas Bank. Banks like Corporation Bank, UCO Bank, BoI and Allahabad Bank refused to reply to the RTI questions. The banks mostly approach the DRT, attach assets under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act or go in for a one-time settlement to recover whatever dues they can. The DRT, set up for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts owed to banks and financial institutions, recovered just 32% of the total outstanding amount in the period 2001-07. In the case of State Bank of Travancore, in the period 2003-2008, of the Rs 10,162 crore claimed by the bank, it has recovered only 15%. Another 50% of the claims is yet to be decided. In the one-time settlement, the bank has forgone another Rs 800 crore. Dena Bank has managed to recover only Rs 725 crore of the Rs 151,85 crore for the period 2003-2008. And the bank has foregone another Rs 950 crore as part of one-time settlement in the period 2006-2008. In the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce, the bank has foregone Rs 1353.5 crore in the last four years. Union Bank of India has recovered only Rs 3,261.5 crore of the Rs 7,623 crore in the period 2006-08. Source: Banks shy away from revealing big defaulters' names - Mumbai - City - NEWS - The Times of India
karira posted a topic in RTI Appeals decisionsThe CIC has ruled that a report of the High Level Committee of IDBI Bank has to be disclosed to the appellant even though it had been denied by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT): The Respondents drew our attention to an order passed by the Debts Recovery TribunalI at Mumbai on 12 July 2010 in which that Tribunal had rejected, among others, the request of the Appellant to disclose the copy of the report of the High Level Committee appointed by the Chairman of the Bank and to implement the same at the earliest. They further submitted that since the DRT had rejected the request of the Appellant to furnish a copy of the report, their request under the RTI should not be entertained. We beg to differ with this argument. Without going into the circumstances in which the DRT decided in the manner it did, the limited issue before this Commission is whether the contents of the said report merit its exemption from disclosure. We must say that there is nothing in this report which can be classified as commercial confidence the disclosure of which can ostensibly affect the competitive interests of the Bank. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant a copy of the said report of the High Level Committee appointed by the CMD of the Bank within 10 working days from the receipt of this order. The full order is attached to this post. IDBI DRT.pdf
Applicant had asked for certain information from DRT, Nagpur. CPIO "advised" the applicant to "obtain the relevant records from the DRT under the DRT, Maharashtra & Goa, Regulations of Practice, 2003." The FAA upheld the order of the CPIO. In the Second Appeal, the CIC has agreed with the contention of the CPIO: http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_A_2009_000990,.pdf Since there is a provision for disclosure of information under the law governing the DRT, the Appellant should access that information by following the procedure laid down under that law and not seek the information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. As Section 22 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act clearly states, it would have overriding effect on other laws only if there is any inconsistency between such laws and the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Since the regulations framed under the law establishing the DRT allows for disclosure of information, there is no inconsistency between those regulations and the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. And, therefore, there is no need for us to interfere in this case. We advise the Appellant to approach the DRT for the desired information by following the regulations laid down by them. =========== Members are also requested to read discussions on similar topic here: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/14658-use-right-information-get-court-order-copies.html
Sirs I want to get information from Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) Ahmedabad. How can I get form and pay fees to get necesaary information? Who should I approach to pay application fees and get forms? DRT is central govt . dept. Please help
karira posted a topic in RTI in MediaAs reported by Parimal Dabhi in expressindia.com on 29 December 2008: Debt tribunal officer accused of crediting forfeited earnest money to auction bidder - Express India Debt tribunal officer accused of crediting forfeited earnest money to auction bidder Ahmedabad A Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has allegedly credited the forfeited Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) to an auction bidder against rules during the re-sale of an immovable property. This open violation of public auction rules has resulted in a loss of Rs 14.70 lakh to the government exchequer. Interestingly, the amount was credited to the bidder company at the written request of another company, which had failed to pay the full amount of the property after winning its bid earlier. Now, Hitesh Dave, an Ahmedabad-based lawyer, has complained to the Presiding Officer of DRT, Ahmedabad to initiate an inquiry against the Recovery Officer, Surender Kumar. A copy of the complaint is available with Newsline. According to Dave’s complaint, The Central Bank of India had initiated Transfer Recovery Proceedings against a silk manufacturing company having immovable property in Valsad district, for the recovery of dues. The DRT Recovery Officer initiated the proceedings. On February 9, 2007, the auction was held in favour of Sarigam Industrial Products for Rs 147 lakh. But, the company failed to pay the full amount on time and the EMD amount of Rs 14.70 lakh was forfeited. (Newsline has the copy of the order passed by the Recovery Officer in this regard). Later, the re-sale of the same property was scheduled through an auction on April 18, 2007 in which a company by the name of M/S JBRS Properties and Investment Private Limited appeared with a request letter of Sarigam Industrial Products. The request letter, among other things, asked to credit the forfeited amount of Rs 14.70 lakh to JBRS Properties and Investment Private Limited. Recovery officer Surender Kumar allowed the request and subsequently the property was sold to JBRS Properties and Investment Private Limited. In his complaint, Dave has said that the Recovery Officer cannot give such credit and cause irreparable loss to the government exchequer. He said: “It is requested that an inquiry be initiated against the Recovery Officer, and after the inquiry if it is found that he has not taken care of the government funds, the said amount should be deducted from his personal account and funds.” He added: “Though, even after the passing of one year of my complaint, the presiding officer doesn’t seem to have taken any steps in the matter.” Dave won appeal under RTI On December 10, Dave had won an appeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act against the public information officer of the DRT whereby he had demanded the accounting details of the forfeited amount of Rs 14.70 lakh. The DRT public information officer has allegedly denied giving the accounts details. The Appellate Authority gave the judgment in Dave’s favour. The time limit to furnish the details ends on January 10.
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/AT-23072008-16.pdf The applicant asked for the following information from the DRT: “1. Copies of all proceedings sheets from the day the mater was instituted by the State Bank of India before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai I in or around 1997. 2. Copies of all documents generated and held in your possession since and including the date of 30.09.2007 in this matter. 3. A property measuring under 3 acres belonging to a defendant company in which I am a director was auctioned on 05.10.2007. Please provide the name and address of the bidder whose bid was accepted by the Recovery Officer. 4. Please provide the details of payments made by this bidder. 5. For each property put up for auction in the matter, please state the number of persons who bid for respective properties against the names of properties. 6. Please state the lowest and highest bid amounts received against each property. 7. Please provide the reasons for not accepting the highest bids in respect of other properties.” IC Tiwari has disallowed disclosure because the PA cited: Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. ITAT; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00586; Date of Decision: 18.09.2007 and because of "judicial independence" Can members go through the full order, as well as the related order cited, and clarify as to how information items 3 to 7 are part of judicial process and judicial independence ?
purpleindian posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportWe've had a pending case in the Debt recovery tribunal-3 (DRT-3), New Delhi, for a very long time (many years). Since the past one year, there is no judge to preside over matters and the case drags on and on. I want to file an RTI application requesting information about "when will a judge appear" for our case. The scribe present in the court room, when asked, said one can file the application in the Ministry of Finance, Dept. of banking but I could not find anything about DRT on the finance ministry's website. The DRT's website lists names (and addresses) of senior officers in various banks who can be asked for information but I think a question about the absence of a judge can only be asked to the judiciary or an equivalent body. Where can I post/send my RTI application requesting the status of the DRT-3 court and whether or not a judge will be appointed in time? Is is possible to send such a question to the CIC? Would they direct it to the appropriate office of the government? Please help.