Simi Dua Vs Bank of Baroda (Delhi High Court)
The petitioner, an advocate who had been providing title search reports to the respondent-Bank since 2009, challenged the order dated 08.02.2021 by which her name was included in the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) caution list. According to the petitioner, she had submitted more than 2,500 search reports for the Bank and was considered one of its best-performing lawyers. In 2016, she issued a search report stating that the mortgaged property was marketable based on the documents provided by the respondent. On 06.07.2020, the Bank issued a show cause notice proposing inclusion of her name in the IBA caution list on the ground of negligence in relation to the mortgage property. The petitioner submitted a reply on 14.07.2020, stating that her non-encumbrance report was based on records available with the office of the Sub-Registrar and the DDA and denying any negligence or fault.
The petitioner contended that the respondent-Bank passed the impugned order without considering her reply or the explanations contained therein and that the order deserved to be set aside. The respondent-Bank argued that the show cause notice reflected the petitioner’s conduct, that her reply contained an admission of guilt, and that the action had been taken strictly in accordance with law. It submitted that the petitioner had caused a substantial loss to the Bank through gross negligence and that the Bank had acted in compliance with the RBI guidelines dated 16.03.2009 and the IBA Circular dated 27.08.2009 after providing adequate opportunity to the petitioner.
