Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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