An RTI to the Department of Legal Affairs regarding the disputed ownership status of the DHFL

Posted on 20/09/22

Updated on 19/12/2022

We have filed another RTI Application, addressing it to the Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India, by asking the following two questions:

1. Are there any legal cases related to the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) that are still under adjudication or sub judice or are pending? 2. Is Piramal Capital and Housing Finance (PCHF) the sole owner of the DHFL after Mr. Ajay Piramal’s appeal (March 2022) at the Supreme Court of India against the NCLAT order (27/01/2022) that designated the DHFL CoC as contrary to law?

(Source: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/dhfl-resolution-piramal-group-files-appeal-in-supreme-court-against-nclat-ruling/article65143891.ece)

Given below is the PDF of the said RTI Application:

rti-application-to-the-department-of-laDownload

Update: The RTI Application was transferred from the Department of Legal Affairs to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs:

See Also:

1. The Dilemma of schizophrenic selves: the changing names of companies under the Piramal Group: A letter to Mr. Ajay Piramal VIEW HERE ⤡

2. WHO IS AJAY PIRAMAL? VIEW HERE ⤡

3. AN RTI ON “WHO OWNS DHFL NOW: PCHF OR PIRAMAL FINANCE?” VIEW HERE ⤡

UPDATE: Our application got transferred yet again! This time it got transferred from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana (ROCDH)!

Further Update:

Our application is being moved from one authority to another! This time it has got transferred to the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai (ROCMU)!

UPDATE (13/10/22):

Alas! Finally the reply came on 13/10/2022, and is given as follows:

rti-online-__-view-status-formDownload

The reply has again stated that asking certain “wh..” questions are prohibited under the RTI Act, viz., why, what, when, whether, if and interrogative queries viz. How, why, when.

However, our RTI application did not even mention any of the above terms! What a strange answer indeed! We have not used those “prohibited” words! We did not even use “who” (although not prohibited) to begin our queries. Both our questions in the application start with “Are there” and “Is…”. Hence, there is no ground for avoiding the answer except to protect the CoC for DHFL, which, as mentioned in NCLAT Second Order (27th Jan, 2022), is “contrary to law”!

What more can one expect better than the above kind of reply inside the plutocratic domain!

We stated all our complaints in one letter addressed to the First Appellate Authority. The text is given as follows:

To

Ms. Rupa Sutar,

First Appellate Authority,

Ministry of Corporate Affairs

Complaint regarding the reply given in response to RTI Application No. ROCMU/R/T/22/00144

Dear Madam, I am not satisfied with the reply (file attached) that I have received in response to my RTI Application No. ROCMU/R/T/22/00144 (file attached; the application was originally addressed to the Department of Legal Affairs with the Application No. MOLAW/R/E/22/00810, but later on it got transferred to the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai). In the reply, the respondent has stated that “…the questions with prefixes as why, what, when, whether, if and interrogative queries viz. How, why, when do not come under the ambit of RTI Act.” However, my RTI Application did not contain any of these above-mentioned terms and the two queries raised within the said application begin with “Are there…” and “Is…” respectively. I am at a loss as to what exactly made the CPIO refrain from furnishing me with the necessary information as requested. This can be considered as a case of serious evasion of information under Section 18 of the RTI Act. I am now paraphrasing as well as simplifying my questions by using the other “wh”, i.e., “who” (which is not prohibited under the RTI Act): Who is the owner of the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) now or is

it yet to be decided at the apex court and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)? For your kind information, the disputed owner of DHFL is now simultaneously using two dubious names for his Housing Finance Company across various social media platforms: Piramal Capital and Housing Finance and Piramal Finance. I would like to request you to kindly look into this matter as well in connection with the content of my RTI Application (Kindly refer to the following image files).

Twitter Handle

Facebook Page

Sincerely anticipating a positive response from your side.

Yours Sincerely,

Dr. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay

COPY TO:

1. THE HONOURABLE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (CIC) OF INDIA

In response to our counter-complaint, the Deputy Registrar of the Registrar of Companies (Mumbai) sent the following snail mail to our residential address:

The above mail text, with a few modifications, was consequently sent to the CIC of India on 19/11/2022:

gmail-second-appeal-regarding-the-replies-given-in-response-to-rti-application-no.-rocmu_r_t_22_00144Download

FURTHER UPDATE (19/12/2022):

The Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, further sent us a communication via speed post on 19th December, 2022, which is given as follows:

It is clear from their vague and ambiguous replies, i.e., their utter inability to supply us with what is required/requested by us clearly shows why the ruling party and its associates are deliberately hiding the face of truth from its own citizens. For how long can such tricks work?