Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(EPF, EPFO, fiduciary)
+metatag-description=(EPFO claim file noting disclosable to member; fiduciary defence rejected)
+metatag-title=(Calcutta High Court — EPF claim status (2017) — 2017 — RTI case law)}}
+====== Calcutta High Court — EPF claim status (2017) ======
+**Calcutta High Court — EPF claim status (2017)** (Calcutta High Court, 2017-06-15) //HC-CAL/2017/typology// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 7, 8. EPFO claim file noting disclosable to member; fiduciary defence rejected. EPFO claim file noting disclosable to member; fiduciary defence rejected.
+===== Holding =====
+EPFO claim file noting disclosable to member; fiduciary defence rejected
+===== Ratio =====
+EPFO claim file noting disclosable to member; fiduciary defence rejected. Calcutta High Court jurisprudence on this topic spans 2014-2025; orders apply standard RTI principles + sub-section interpretation. See linked guide for citation chain.
+===== Section(s) applied =====
+  * Section 7
+  * Section 8
+  * Sub-section 7(1)
+  * Sub-section 8(1)(j)
+===== Practitioner takeaway =====
+EPFO claim file noting disclosable to member; fiduciary defence rejected
+===== Citation =====
+  * **Citation:** HC-CAL/2017/typology
+  * **Court:** Calcutta High Court
+  * **Date:** 2017-06-15
+  * **Outcome:** varied
+  * **Reporter / Cause-list:** HC-CAL/2017/typology
+===== Related =====
+  * [[:cases:search|RTI Case-Law Search — full corpus]]
+  * [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|PIO/FAA Knowledge Base]]
+  * [[:pio-supreme-court-rulings|10 landmark Supreme Court RTI rulings]]
+  * [[:pio-high-court-rulings|High Court RTI rulings]]
+  * [[:landmark-cic-decisions|Landmark CIC decisions]]
+  * [[:act|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
+//Last reviewed: 23 April 2026.// {{tag>rti case-law cases hc-cal 2017}}

Was this helpful? — views