UDAY NARAYAN GHOSH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a legal practitioner and has been an empanelled advocate of different nationalized and private sector banks, including the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (subsequently merged on April 1, 2017 with the State Bank of India) and other subsidiaries of the State Bank of India (Respondent no. 1).

(2.) The petitioner alleges that the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur had been engaging the petitioner in various legal assignments till its merger with the State Bank on April 1, 2017, without giving any indication to the petitioner of the report which allegedly led to the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the impugned caution list.

(3.) In the year 2018, it is alleged in the writ petition, the petitioner learnt of a letter, bearing no. FMC/2300 dated January 2, 2014, issued by the then State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur to the Indian Banks' Association (IBA), being Respondent No. 5, with an advice to place the petitioner's name in the IBA Caution List of Third Party Entities involved in frauds. The petitioner wrote to ascertain the facts, on which the Deputy Chief Executive, IBA (Respondent no. 6) replied, vide letter no. OPR/MC-SEC/TPE/6311 dated November 15, 2018, informing that the petitioner had been so listed on the report of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (since merged with Respondent no. 1), which was circulated to all members of the IBA vide communication no. LEGAL/CIR/Fr/1/8664 dated January 16, 2014. The IBA asked the petitioner to approach the Respondent no. 1-Bank for removal of his name from the list.