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

111
0
Share:
evidence physical Bail Diamonds Tax civil v Porsche Car withdrawal Railway Financial Teacher Duty Service Property Notification Appointments Industries Film psychological Property damage Bail Room Husband Sarpanch Certificate Employment Children Judicial Central Rape judiciary Ownership driving Railway Workman driving Domestic fraud DV Date bank marital Daughter DRT Sex Educational Loan DVDuty Act child Candidate Section 202 vBail Sister absence Tenancy

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

Download Judgment

Share: