UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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