Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 08 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – M/s. A.K. Singh and Associates & Anr.; Respondents – Punjab and Sind Bank (Respondent No. 1) and Indian Banks’ Association (Respondent No. 2).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition (W.P.O. No. 290 of 2026) seeking a direction to delete the petitioners’ names from the bank’s de‑panelled professionals list and from the IBA caution list.
  • Background: The petitioners were empaneled advocates of Punjab and Sind Bank. They conducted a title‑search report on a property of borrower Promit Maity (3 cottahs, 8 chittaks, 26 sq.ft., four‑storied building at Plot No. 905, Lake Town, Mouza‑Patipukur, Holding No. 895 (old) & 1615 (new), Block‑A, South Dumdum Municipality). The report was submitted to the bank on 16 Nov 2018.
  • Subsequent Bank Action: After four years, the bank issued a letter dated 2 Aug 2022 requesting the petitioners’ “comments” on the report, alleging that the title deed relied upon by the borrower was forged. The petitioners replied with a detailed response, but the bank made no further communication and provided no personal hearing.
  • De‑panelment: In March 2025 the petitioners discovered, via reliable sources and the bank’s website, that their names had been placed on the bank’s de‑panelled professionals list. The bank also forwarded their names to Respondent No. 2 for inclusion in the IBA caution list, which is circulated to various banks and financial institutions.
  • Impact on Petitioners: The de‑panelment and blacklisting adversely affected the petitioners’ professional reputation and resulted in loss of present and prospective opportunities.
  • Legal Reliance: Petitioners relied on Rajan Shrivallabha Deshpande Vs. Bank of Baroda (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1628) and Blue Dreamz Advertising Private Limited Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation (2024) 15 SCC 264, emphasizing the duties of advocates and the severe consequences of blacklisting.
  • Bank’s Procedural Defense: Respondent No. 1 cited RBI Circular dated 16 Mar 2009 and IBA notification dated 27 Aug 2009, which require banks to report third‑party involvement in fraud to IBA. The bank issued a show‑cause notice on 17 Aug 2022 but, as argued by the respondents, the circular does not mandate a show‑cause notice or hearing before de‑panelment itself.
  • Court’s Findings on Procedure: The Court held that the bank failed to provide a show‑cause notice or any hearing before de‑panelment and before reporting the name to IBA, contrary to the procedural guidelines that require satisfaction of involvement and an opportunity of hearing.
  • Title Search Report Details: The petitioners verified the following documents:

| Sl.No | Date | Document | Copy Type |

|1|26‑09‑1963|Deed of Conveyance (Governor of West Bengal as Vendor, Pravatansu Maiti as Purchaser)|Certified copy|

|2|30‑04‑2013|Deed of Gift (Usha Maity & Sucharita Ray as donors in favour of Promit Maity)|Photocopy|

|3|11‑08‑2014|Mutation Certificate (South Dumdum Municipality)|Photocopy|

|4|20‑02‑2018|Tax receipt (South Dumdum Municipality)|Photocopy|

|5|06‑07‑1963|Sanction Plan (South Dumdum Municipality)|Photocopy|

The report also confirmed physical verification at ADSR‑Bidhannagar, DSR‑II, Barasat, ARA‑II & IV Kolkata, and that the property taxes were paid up to FY 2017‑18.

  • Loan Details of Borrower: The bank’s own report stated that the borrower (M/s. JSW Traders, represented by Promit Maity and Moushumi Maity) obtained:
  • Rs 157.00 lakhs under PSB Vyapar Loan Scheme
  • Term loan CRCTL of Rs 15,70,000
  • Term loan ECTL of Rs 31,00,000
  • Total loan amount: Rs 2,03,70,000 (disbursed on 13‑12‑2018, reviewed on 26‑03‑2020). The loan became NPA on 19‑02‑2020, leading the bank to initiate SARFAESI proceedings under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
  • Court’s Reasoning: Citing the Deshpande judgment, the Court noted that an advocate’s legal opinion must be rendered with reasonable competence but liability arises only if the advocate actively participates in fraud. The Blue Dreamz judgment was invoked to stress that blacklisting is a drastic remedy requiring objective satisfaction and should not be imposed for ordinary contractual breaches.
  • Conclusion: The Court found that the respondents did not follow due process before de‑panelment and before forwarding the petitioners’ names to IBA. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to remove the petitioners’ names from both the de‑panelled professionals list and the IBA caution list "forthwith".

Final Outcome

  • The High Court allowed W.P.O. No. 290 of 2026, ordering Punjab and Sind Bank to delete A.K. Singh & Associates from its de‑panelled professionals list and to ensure the removal of their name from the Indian Banks’ Association caution list immediately.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Banking Regulation, Professional Blacklisting