Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

High Court Orders Removal of Advocate’s Name from Caution List, Citing No Negligence or Fraud in Discharging Duties”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment dated January 30, 2024, the Bombay High Court, comprising Justices A. S. Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain, directed the Indian Banks’ Association to remove advocate Shailesh Vishwanath Jambhale’s name from their “Caution List”. The bench observed that the inclusion was unwarranted as there was no evidence of either negligence or fraud on the part of the advocate in providing legal services to the State Bank of India.

Legal Point of the Judgment: The legal crux revolves around the professional conduct of the advocate and the due diligence required in providing legal services, particularly in the context of Search and Title Reports for property loans.

Facts and Issues: Shailesh Jambhale, a panel advocate for the State Bank of Hyderabad (now merged with SBI), was implicated following allegations of negligence leading to fraudulent property loans. The bank alleged that Jambhale failed to verify property details properly, resulting in significant financial losses. In response, Jambhale filed a writ petition challenging his inclusion in the “Caution List”.

Court’s Assessment: Justice Jitendra Jain, in his judgment, meticulously dissected the facts. He noted that the advocate’s reports explicitly stated that they were based on photocopies provided by the bank, and the bank was aware that these reports were not based on certified copies. “Therefore, the Respondent No.1 cannot now turn around and allege negligence against the Petitioner of the fact which they themselves were made aware by the Petitioner in the report itself,” the judgment read.

Further, the court highlighted the bank’s own guidelines, emphasizing that the primary responsibility of verifying property details rested with its officials. The court observed, “These responsibilities, now post unearthing of the fraud, cannot be shifted to the Petitioner to pass the buck.”

The judgment also referenced similar cases, including Rajan Shrivallabha Deshpande Vs. Bank of Baroda & Anr., and Mohana Raj Nair Vs. CBI, to reinforce the argument against the petitioner’s alleged negligence.

Concluding, the court allowed the petition and directed the removal of the petitioner’s name from the “Caution List,” stressing the absence of fraud and reasonable adherence to professional duties.

Date of Decision: January 30, 2024

Shri. Shailesh Vishwanath Jambhale Vs. The General Manager, State Bank of India

Latest Legal News