Calcutta High Court
M/S. A.K. Singh And Associates & Anr vs Punjab And Sind Bank & Anr on 8 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)
ORIGINAL SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao
W.P.O. No. 290 of 2026
M/s. A.K. Singh and Associates & Anr.
Vs.
Punjab and Sind Bank & Anr.
Mr. Joydeep Kar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sabyasachi Chaudhury, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anuj Singh
Ms. Trinisha De
Ms. Rupal Singh
Ms. Anukriti Poddar
Mr. Parichay Pathak
Mr. Shivam Chaturvedi
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jewrajka
....For the petitioners.
Mr. Swarvanu Saha
....For the respondents.
2
Hearing Concluded On : 03.07.2026
Judgment Delivered On : 08.07.2026
Judgment Uploaded On : 08.07.2026
Krishna Rao, J.:
1. The petitioners have filed this present writ petition praying for a
direction upon the respondents to remove the petitioners’ name from
the de-paneled list and also to recall and withdraw the name of the
petitioners from the caution list of the respondent no.2.
2. The petitioners being the empaneled Advocates of the respondent no. 1
bank and as per the request of the respondent no. 1, conducted title
search of the property of borrower, measuring 3 cottahs, 8 chittaks and
26 sq.ft, together with a four storied building situated at Plot No. 905,
Lake Town, Mouza- Patipukur, under Holding No. 895 (Old), and 1615
(new), Block-A, within the South Dumdum Municipality.
3. The petitioners after conducting title search of the aforesaid property of
the borrower, namely, Promit Maity, had submitted the Title Search
Report to the respondent no. 1 on 16th November, 2018. After the lapse
of about four years, the respondent no. 1 by a letter dated 2nd August,
2022, called upon the petitioner no. 1 to submit “comments” on the
Title Search Report dated 16th November, 2018. In the said letter, it is
alleged that the title deed relied by the borrower, namely, Mr. Promit
Maity was not genuine and that the borrower had defrauded the bank
by using forged documents.
3
4. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioners have submitted a detailed
reply informing the respondent no. 1 that the petitioners have
submitted the search report upon verification of certified copy of the
Deed of Gift, Mutation Certificate, Tax receipt, Sanction Plan and other
documents. After receipt of the said reply, the respondent no. 1 has not
made any communications with the petitioners and no opportunity of
personal hearing was provided to the petitioners.
5. Mr. Joydeep Kar, Learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Sabyasachi
Chaudhury, Learned Senior Advocate, representing the petitioners
submit that all of a sudden in the month of March, 2025, the
petitioners came to know from reliable sources that the name of the
petitioners had been included in the list of de-paneled professionals
maintained by the respondent no. 1 and upon checking the official
website of the respondent no. 1, the petitioners confirmed that their
names were indeed listed under the de-paneled professionals list.
6. Mr. Kar submits that on further inquiry, the petitioners came to know
that the respondent no. 1 has also forwarded the name of the
petitioners’ to the respondent no. 2 for inclusion in the caution list
maintained by the respondent no. 2 and circulated to various banks
and financial institutions.
7. Mr. Kar submits that the inclusion of the name of the petitioners on the
de-paneled list of the respondent no. 1 and caution list of the
respondent no. 2, has adversely impacted the petitioners’ professional
4
reputation and credibility, thereby resulting in loss of present and
prospective professional opportunities. He submits that the impugned
action of the respondent no. 1, thereby effectively blacklisting the
petitioners and branding the petitioner no. 1 firm as professionally
unfit without giving any opportunity of hearing and without conducting
any enquiry.
8. Mr. Kar has relied upon the judgment in the case of Rajan
Shrivallabha Deshpande Vs. Bank of Baroda and Another reported
in 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1628 and submits that legal opinion has
become an integral component of an Advocate’s work in banking sector.
Therefore, an Advocate on his part has responsibility to act to the best
of his knowledge and skills and to exhibit an unremitting loyalty to the
interest of his client.
9. Mr. Kar has further relied upon the judgment in the case of Blue
Dreamz Advertising Private Limited and Another Vs. Kolkata
Municipal Corporation and Others reported in (2024) 15 SCC 264
and submits that blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from
the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the
Government for the purposes of gains.
10. Mr. Swarvanu Saha, Learned Advocate representing the respondents
submits that in terms of the Reserve Bank of India Circular dated 16 th
March, 2009 and the notification of the Indian Banks’ Association
dated 27th August, 2009, the banks had been advised to report to the
5
Indian Banks’ Association, the details of third partiers, including
professionals involved in fraud and accordingly, the respondent no. 1
by a letter dated 17th August, 2022, issued a show cause notice to the
petitioners, calling upon the petitioners to submit “comments” within 7
days of the receipt of the letter.
11. Mr. Saha submits that before reporting to Indian Banks’ Association,
banks are required to satisfy themselves about the involvement of third
parties concerned and also to provide an opportunity of hearing. He
submits that the Circular does not speaks that banks are required to
issue show cause notice or hearing before de-panelment of the
professional and thus the respondent no. 1 did not issued show cause
notice, nor provide any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before
de-paneling the petitioners from the list of empaneled professionals.
12. Mr. Saha submits that as per Circular, the respondent no.1 bank was
required to issue a show cause notice and provide an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners only before reporting the de-panelment to the
respondent no.2 but which inadvertently was not done and if this Court
directs the respondent no.1 will issue a show cause notice and will
provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He further submits
that if this Court directs to remove the name of the petitioners from the
list of de-paneled professionals, the bank will remove the same.
6
13. Mr. Saha submits that the bank has never made any allegation of fraud
against the petitioners but the bank observed an act of negligence on
the part of the petitioners.
14. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the
materials of record and the judgments relied by the petitioners. While
preparing Title Search Report, the petitioners have verified the following
documents:
Sl. Date of Particulars of the document Original
No Document Certified
Photocopy/
true copy1 26.09.1963 Deed of Conveyance,
registered in the office of Sub-
Register Cossipore Dumdum,
recorded in Book No. I, Volume
No. 118, pages 5 to 9 Being
No. 7529 for the year 1963,
executed by the Governor of
the State of West Bengal as
Vendor and Pravatansu Maiti
as Purchaser.
2 30.04.2013 Deed of Gift registered with the Photo copy
office of ADSR-Bidhannagar,
Recorded in Book No. I, CD
Volume No. 4, Pages 2562 to
2575, Being No. 01377 for the
year 2013, executed by Smt.
Usha Maity & Smt. Sucharita
Ray as Donors in favour of
Promit Maity.
3 11.08.2014 Mutation Certificate Issued by Photo copy
South Dumdum Municipality
4 20.02.2018 Tax receipt Issued by South Photo copy
Dumdum Municipality
7
5 06.07.1963 Sanction Plan issued by South Photo copy
Dum Dum Municipality
18. Whether searches had been Yes
conducted physically at the offices.
i) Sub-Registrar’s office/ Municipal/ ADSR-Bidhannagar, DSR-II
Collector/ Taluk or Such other Barasat, ARA-II & IV Kolkata
Revenue office.
ii) Whether Mutated in the name of Yes
the person creating the mortgage. Paid upto 2017-18 Certificate
No. A-33454 Mutation
Certificate enclosed.
15. In the notice dated 2nd August, 2022, it was informed to the petitioners
that the title deed is not genuine and the borrower has cheated the
bank with the aid of forged and fabricated documents. In the report
submitted by the bank in the present case, reads as follows :
“7. I say that there was indeed a fraud done
by the borrower namely M/s. JSW Traders,
represented by its borrowers Promit Maity and
Moushumi Maity, whereby M/s. JSW Traders have
taken loans from multiple banks using the same
Title Deed being No. 01377 of 2013 registered with
the office of the ADSR Bidhannagar along with the
mother Deed No. 7529 of 1963, in respect of ALL
THAT Part and parcel of the property consisting of
land & building situated at Plot No.05, Lake Town,
Mouza Patipukur, C.S. Plot Nos. 152, 133, 134, 156
Holding No. 895(old) 1615(New), Lake Town, Block-
A, Police Station Dumdum, within the limits of
South Dumdum Municipality, Parganas- Kalikata,
J.L. No.24, District North 24 Parganas 7A. M/s.
JSW Traders, represented by its borrowers Promit
Maity and Moushumi Maity, whereby M/s. JSW
Traders have taken a loan of Rs Rs 157.00 lakhs
under PSB Vyapar Loan Scheme, and another
facility in the form of term loan CRCTL of Rs.
8
15,70,000 and term loan facility (ECTL) of Rs.
31,00,000 thus total amount Rs. 2,03,70,000 from
the respondent No. 1 bank on and about
13.12.2018 an thereafter reviewed on 26.03.2020.
Subsequently, the borrower failed to repay the loan
and the loan account became NPA on 19.02.2020.
Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 Bank initiated
SARFAESI proceeding against the borrower by
issuing notice under section 13(2) and exercising its
power under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,
2002 and thereafter decided to sell the aforesaid
mortgaged property.”
16. From the said statements, it is clear that the borrower has used the
deeds for obtaining loan from different banks. From the Title Search
Report of the petitioners, it is clear that the petitioners have verified the
documents from the office of ADSR-Bidhannagar, DSR-II, Barasat,
ARA-II and IV Kolkata. The petitioners in his report also mentioned that
the borrower has paid revenue and municipal taxes upto 2017-2018.
17. Procedural guidelines for reporting names of third parties involved in
fraud to Indian Banks’ Association for inclusion in the caution list
provides that before reporting to Indian Banks’ Association, banks are
required to satisfy themselves about the involvement of third parties
concern and also provide them with an opportunity of being heard. In
the case of the petitioners by a letter dated 2nd August, 2022, the
respondent no.1 bank has only requested the petitioners to submit its
comments as the bank came to know that the title deed is not genuine
and the borrower has cheated the bank with the aid of forged and
fabricated land documents. In the said communication, the bank has
not directed or requested to show cause as to why action shall not be
9
taken against the petitioners for de-panelment and reporting to Indian
Banks’ Association to include the name of the petitioners in the caution
list. The petitioners have submitted its comments to the
communication dated 2nd August, 2022 but after receipt of the said
comments, the bank has not made any correspondence with the
petitioners.
18. In the case of Rajan Shrivallabha Deshpande (supra), the Hon’ble
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that:
“11. Now a days it is a settled practice that for
obtaining loan or while granting loan rendering a
legal opinion has become an integral component of
an advocate’s work in banking sector. Therefore,
an advocate on his part has responsibility to act to
the best of his knowledge and skills and to exhibit
an unremitting loyalty to the interest of his client.
An advocate is required to exercise due diligence in
a manner that would advance the interest of his
client. However, while acting so the advocate never
assures his client that the opinion so rendered by
him is after taking due precaution and care. Like
any other profession, the only assurance which an
advocate can give and may be implied from an
advocate while acting in professional capacity is
that his possesses the requisite skill in his field of
practice and while undertaking the performance of
the work entrusted to him, he would exercise his
skill with reasonable competence. In this regard we
may refer to the following observations made by
the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central
Bureau of Investigation v. K. Narayana
Rao reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512, wherein a First
Information Report came to be lodged for
commission of offences punishable under sections
120B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with
section 109 of the Penal Code, 1860 and section
13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 against various accused
including a legal practitioner, who was a panel
advocate of a bank. It was alleged that said panel
10advocate had given a false legal opinion with
regard to 10 housing loans. The legal practitioner
filed proceeding under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the criminal
proceeding. The Andhra Pradesh High Court
quashed the said proceeding against the legal
practitioner. That order was challenged before the
hon’ble Supreme Court. In paragraph 27 of the said
decision it has been observed as under:
“27. In the banking sector in particular,
rendering of legal opinion for granting of loans
has become an important component of an
advocate’s work. In the law of negligence,
professionals such as lawyers, doctors,
architects and others are included in the
category of persons professing some special
skills. A lawyer does not tell his client that he
shall win the case in all circumstances.
Likewise a physician would not assure the
patient of full recovery in every case. A
surgeon cannot and does not guarantee that
the result of surgery would invariably be
beneficial, much less to the extent of 100 per
cent. for the person operated on. The only
assurance which such a professional can give
or can be given by implication is that he is
possessed of the requisite skill in that branch
of profession which he is practising and while
undertaking the performance of the task
entrusted to him, he would be exercising his
skill with reasonable competence. This is what
the person approaching the professional can
expect. Judged by this standard, a
professional may be held liable for negligence
on one of the two findings, viz., either he was
not possessed of the requisite skill which he
professed to have possessed, or, he did not
exercise, with reasonable competence in the
given case, the skill which he did possess.”
In Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar
Council of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 2 SCC
556, it is held by the hon’ble apex court that there
is a world of difference between the giving of
improper legal advice and the giving of wrong legal
advice. Mere negligence unaccompanied by any
moral delinquency on the part of a legal practitioner
11
in the exercise of his profession does not amount to
professional misconduct. It is held by the hon’ble
apex court that, therefore the liability against an
opining advocate arises only when the lawyer was
an active participant in a plan to defraud the bank.
To determine whether the person charged has been
negligent or not, he has to be judged like an
ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill
in that profession. It is not expected that every
professional possesses the expertise in the said
branch which he practices.”
19. In the present case, the petitioners while preparing Title Search Report
has obtained report form the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division and
Junior Division at Barasat whether any suit is pending with respect to
the property in question, carried out inspection from the office of the
ARA-II & IV Kolkata with respect to the registered deeds and properties
and also obtained necessary documents from the South Dumdum
Municipality. In the Title Search Report, the petitioners have suggested
to the bank that for creation of valid mortgage, the borrower should
also provide supporting documents like lay out approval, completion
certificates, possession letter, commencement certificates, revenue
receipts, holding tax receipts etc. to show that the property is
marketable.
20. In the case of Blue Dreamz Advertising Private Limited (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“21. Blacklisting has always been viewed by
this Court as a drastic remedy and the orders
passed have been subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
In Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of
W.B., this Court observed that:
12
“20. Blacklisting has the effect of
preventing a person from the privilege and
advantage of entering into lawful relationship
with the Government for purposes of gains.
The fact that a disability is created by the
order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant
authority is to have an objective satisfaction.”
24. What is significant is that while setting
out the guidelines prescribed in USA, the Court
noticed that comprehensive guidelines for
debarment were issued there for protecting public
interest from those contractors and recipients who
are non-responsible, lack business integrity or
engage in dishonest or illegal conduct or are
otherwise unable to perform satisfactorily. The
illustrative cases set out also demonstrate that
debarment as a remedy is to be invoked in cases
where there is harm or potential harm for public
interest particularly in cases where the person’s
conduct has demonstrated that debarment as a
penalty alone will protect public interest and deter
the person from repeating his actions which have a
tendency to put public interest in jeopardy. In fact,
it is common knowledge that in notice inviting
tenders, any person blacklisted is rendered
ineligible. Hence, blacklisting will not only debar
the person concerned from dealing with the
employer concerned, but because of the
disqualification, their dealings with other entities
also is proscribed. Even in the terms and conditions
of tender in the present case, one of the conditions
of eligibility is that the agency should not be
blacklisted from anywhere.
25. In other words, where the case is of an
ordinary breach of contract and the explanation
offered by the person concerned raises a bona fide
dispute, blacklisting/debarment as a penalty ought
not to be resorted to. Debarring a person albeit for
a certain number of years tantamounts to civil
death inasmuch as the said person is commercially
ostracised resulting in serious consequences for the
person and those who are employed by him.
21. Admittedly, other than the communication dated 2nd August, 2022, the
bank has neither issued any show cause notice to the petitioners nor
13
any personal hearing was provided to the petitioners. In the report
submitted by the respondent no.1 also admitted that neither show
cause notice was issued nor any personal hearing was provided to the
petitioners. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the report reads as follows:
“5. I say that as per the aforesaid circular the
respondent No. 1 bank was required to issue a
show cause notice and provide a hearing to the
petitioner only before reporting the de-panelment to
the Indian Bank Association (IBA) which was
inadvertently not done by the respondent No. 1
bank and if this Hon’ble Court so directs the
respondent No. 1 bank shall issue a show cause
notice and provide a hearing to the petitioner
accordingly.
6. I say that if the Hon’ble Court further
directs that name of the petitioner be removed from
the list of de-panalled professional the same shall
also be done.”
22. This Court finds that the respondents before de-paneling the name of
the petitioners and sending the name of the petitioners to the Indian
Bank’s Association for placing in the caution list, the respondents have
not followed the due process of law by giving any opportunity of hearing
to the petitioners in terms of the procedural guidelines.
23. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to remove the name
of the petitioners from the de-paneled list and also from the caution list
of the Indian Bank’s Association forthwith.
24. WPO No. 290 of 2026 is allowed.
14
Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the
Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.
Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for,
be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Krishna Rao, J.)
