Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwar Singh Rajpurohit vs Dena Bank (Now Bank Of Baroda) on 8 December, 2021
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13769/2019
Bhanwar Singh Rajpurohit S/o Late Shri Achal Singh, Aged About
52 Years, Resident Of 80 A Block Meera Nagar, Bhuwana,
Udaipur. (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Dena Bank (Now Bank Of Baroda), Corporate Office, Dena
Corporate Centre, C-10, G-Block, Bandra - Kurla
Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai- 400001, Through Its
General Manager.
2. The Zonal Manager, Dena Bank (Now Bank Of Baroda)
Zonal Office, Bank Of Baroda, Baroda Bhawan, 13 Airport
Plaza Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur, 302018.
3. The Regional Manager, Dena Bank (Now Bank Of Baroda)
Regional Officer, P. No. 1N C, Block L, Sub City Centre
Area, Beside Income Tax Building Udaipur 313001.
4. The Branch Manager, Dena Bank (Now Bank Of Baroda)
7-A, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur.
5. The Indian Banks Association, World Trade Centre
Complex, Centre 1, 6Th Floor Cuffaparde, Mumbai
400005 Through Its Chief Executive Officer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit with
Mr. Vikram Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG
Mr. P.K. Poonia
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 08/12/2021
1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and (Downloaded on 09/12/2021 at 09:07:43 PM) (2 of 7) [CW-13769/2019] by an appropriate writ, order or direction, impugned order (recommendation) dated 05.02.2015 (Annexure-
9) may kindly be quashed and consequential thereof all the proceedings taken place and caution list of IBA's qua the petitioner's may kindly be quashed."
2. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the present petitioner is an Advocate (duly enrolled with the Bar Council of Rajasthan), practising at Udaipur, and has been representing the respondent- Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) in the litigation before the Courts at Udaipur since 2005.
3. The bone of contention in the present case is the two legal opinions and search reports dated 04.12.2006 and 28.12.2006 submitted by the petitioner before the respondent-Bank as its panel lawyer, in respect of a residential plot No.5 situated at Bedla, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur measuring 1800 square feet (approx.) and residential plot No.4 situated at Sapetiya, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, respectively. The said properties were sought to be mortgaged by the owner thereof, namely, Amit Soni as collateral security and equitable mortgage for the purpose of borrowing some loan amount from the respondent-Bank, in lieu of such mortgage.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being a panel lawyer of the respondent-Bank, has furnished the legal opinions and search reports in question, after making due inquiries as to the correctness and genuineness of all the documents pertaining to the properties in question from the authorities concerned, including the Office of the Sub Registrar-I, Udaipur, and thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner was at fault in any manner.
(Downloaded on 09/12/2021 at 09:07:43 PM)
(3 of 7) [CW-13769/2019]
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that upon an information being received by the police on 11.03.2011, an FIR bearing No.101/2011 was registered at Police Station, Surajpole, Udaipur, in respect of the properties in question, with the allegation that various persons were involved in the act of commission of cheating and fraud so as to borrow loans from various Banks by mortgaging such properties.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that after thorough investigation pursuant to registration of the aforementioned FIR, although the concerned investigating officer has filed a charge-sheet under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against various persons, including the borrower Amit Soni, but the said charge-sheet did not contain the names of the present petitioner or any of the employees of the respondent-Bank. Learned counsel further submits that a criminal case No.140/2011 arising out of the aforementioned FIR and the charge-sheet is still pending before the learned trial court.
Learned counsel thus, submits that such exoneration of the present petitioner by the concerned investigating authority is a sufficient proof that the present petitioner was in no way involved in the crime, as found to have been committed by borrower Amit Soni and other persons.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-Bank has issued a show-cause notice dated 11/12.02.2013 to the petitioner in regard to certain defects and irregularities alleged to have been found in the legal opinions and search reports in question furnished by the present petitioner, in respect of the properties in question, before the respondent-Bank. (Downloaded on 09/12/2021 at 09:07:43 PM)
(4 of 7) [CW-13769/2019] Learned counsel also submits that the aforementioned notice has been replied by the petitioner on 16.02.2013, while furnishing all the relevant material therewith, which shows that the title deeds and chain of documents were perfectly in order, as there is no endorsement otherwise available in the Office of the Sub Registrar concerned in respect of the properties in questions.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner received another notice dated 13.04.2013 from the respondent-Bank on the pretext that the bank account of borrower Amit Soni has been classified as Non Performing Assets (NPA), which casts a doubt upon the legal opinions and the search reports in question. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has replied the said notice on 19.07.2013 alongwith all the relevant material therewith, while taking a clear stand that the petitioner was not at fault, and thus, not committed any fraud with the respondent-Bank.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that despite the aforementioned factual backdrop, the respondent-Bank, vide report dated 05.02.2015 to the Indian Banks' Association (I.B.A.) for inclusion of the petitioner's name in the caution list, pertaining to the Third Party Entities (TPE), maintained by the IBA, whereupon the petitioner's name was included in the said caution list by the IBA; such inclusion of his name was communicated to the petitioner by the respondent-Bank vide its letter dated 06.10.2018.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the Title Clearance Reports in respect of the properties in question have been submitted by the petitioner without proper search and inspection in the Office of the Sub (Downloaded on 09/12/2021 at 09:07:43 PM) (5 of 7) [CW-13769/2019] Registrar concerned, which is evident from the fact that multiple sale deeds have been found in the Office of the Sub Registrar in respect of the properties in question. Learned counsel further submits that had the petitioner moved an appropriate application before the concerned authority, he would have been in a position to ascertain the possibility of registration of multiple sale deeds in respect of the properties in question.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that though no criminal liability has been saddled upon the present petitioner, in pursuance of the aforementioned FIR and the charge-sheet, but the fact that the documents pertaining to the properties in question are fake, cannot be denied, in view of registration of multiple sale deeds in the office of the Sub Registrar concerned and filing of the charge-sheet by the police against borrower Amit Soni and other persons.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents however, submits that the act of the respondent-Bank is not such, which can be termed as stigmatic, as far as the present petitioner is concerned. Learned counsel also submits that even if it is believed that inclusion of the petitioner's name in the caution list maintained by the IBA results in any grievance to the present petitioner, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary or contrary to law, as like an ordinary client, the respondent-Bank also has a right to always remain cautioned while appointing any lawyer to represent the Bank, and such right cannot be taken away from it.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the act of the respondent-Bank regarding not having put any stigma upon the present petitioner is also fortified from the fact that no (Downloaded on 09/12/2021 at 09:07:43 PM) (6 of 7) [CW-13769/2019] civil, criminal or any other proceeding has been initiated against the present petitioner, at the instance of the respondent-Bank.
14. When the matter was listed yesterday i.e. 07.12.2021, this Court directed Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Additional Advocate General to find out from the Office of the Sub Registrar concerned as to whether in case any lawyer seeks information regarding the sale deeds of a particular property, by adopting a particular procedure, the same could be obtained.
15. Today the learned Additional Advocate General makes a categorical statement before this Court that in the year 2006, when the incident in question took place, it was within the domain of the lawyer to move an application and get proper information about the registered sale deeds/title deeds in respect of a particular property, and such due diligence was permissible in law.
16. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that it was the duty of the present petitioner, being a panel lawyer of the respondent-Bank, to have made all endeavour to ascertain the correctness or genuineness of the documents of the properties in question and the registration of multiple sale deeds pertaining to the properties in question in the Office of the Sub Registrar concerned, either by filing an appropriate application before the concerned authority, or by putting in other lawful efforts. However, the petitioner has not been able to show before this Court that he has undertaken the same, and exercised a reasonable duty of care and caution. This is more so when, the money deposited in the Banks is public money, and cannot be permitted to be taken away unlawfully, even on the pretext of borrowing a loan, by any person, in lieu of a fake collateral security or equitable mortgage. (Downloaded on 09/12/2021 at 09:07:43 PM)
(7 of 7) [CW-13769/2019]
17. This Court takes note of the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the year 2006 when the incident in question took place, if a lawyer had moved an appropriate application before the Office of the Sub Registrar concerned seeking information regarding the sale deeds of a particular property, the same would have made been available, and thus, in this case, the due diligence was not being maintained.
18. This Court further finds that the respondent-Bank has not launched any proceeding either civil or criminal or any other proceeding against the present petitioner in regard to the issue in question. Moreover, the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the caution list maintained by the IBA cannot be said to be a stigma upon the present petitioner, as the respondent-Bank has every right to remain cautioned while appointing a lawyer of its choice, like any other ordinary client. Thus, such inclusion, in the opinion of this Court, is a mere caveat for the banks of the country to exercise their discretion and remain cautious, while making appointment of a panel lawyer to represent them in the Courts.
19. This Court is thus of the firm opinion that the act of the respondent-Bank cannot be said to be arbitrary or contrary to law in any manner, so as to warrant any interference by this Court.
20. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
193-SKant/-
(Downloaded on 09/12/2021 at 09:07:43 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)