(1.) Delay condoned. Leave granted. [The present Civil Appeal arises from the judgment and order dtd. 20/11/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12074 of 2023.]
(2.) The appellant, an advocate by profession, served as panel counsel for Canara Bank at the relevant time. Pursuant to a legal opinion rendered by him in the year 2015, the Bank considered it necessary, not only to remove his name from its panel of advocates but also to include his name in what is called the "Caution List", maintained by the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) as per guidelines in circulars issued by RBI. The writ petition instituted by the appellant challenging the aforesaid action of the Bank and the IBA came to be dismissed on the ground that the IBA is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution.
(3.) The appellant, an advocate by profession, was enrolled in 1998 and had been on the panel of several banks and financial institutions for rendering legal advisory services. He claims to have been on the panel of the respondent Bank from September 2010, and to have continued to provide professional services. The dispute traces its origin to a communication dtd. 27/7/2018 issued by the regional manager of the Bank, in which it was alleged that a legal opinion furnished by the appellant on 8/8/2015 regarding certain immovable property offered as security for a credit facility was erroneous. By the said communication, the appellant was called upon to furnish his explanation. The allegation proceeded on the footing that, while the appellant had opined that the subject land which was given as collateral for a credit facility of Rs.2.00 Crore was wholly owned by M/s Pushpanjali Buildwell Private Limited, the guarantor to the loan transaction, a portion thereof had, in fact, been alienated three years back under sale deeds dtd. 31/10/2012, and the opinion failed to examine this. According to the respondent bank, this omission exposed it to financial risk.