Sri Vittal S Rai Vs South Indian Bank Ltd.

SRI VITTAL S. RAI ADVOCATE S/O. LATE SEENAPPA RAI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS M/S. V. S. RAI AND ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM NO.23, VENKATADRI 2^ND FLOOR, 6^TH MAIN, 5^TH CROSS OPPOSITE CORPORATION SCHOOL SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA BENGALURU-560 027

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, S.I.B. HOUSE, T.B. ROAD THRISSUR-680 001, KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶15

SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., CHRIST UNIVERSITY CAMPUS DHARMARAM POST BENGALURU-560 029 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:31064 WP No. 29963 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., NO.65/2, KAIKONDRAHALLI BENGALURU-560 035 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶19

INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION CENTRE-1, 6^TH FLOOR, CENTRAL BUILDING WORLD TRADE COMPLEX CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI-400 005 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶20

THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA SHAHID BHAGATH SINGH ROAD FORT, MUMBAI-400 005 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI PRASANTH V. G., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3, SRI PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADOVCATE FOR R-5, VIDE ORDER DATED 16/12/2024

¶23

NOTICE TO R-4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ALL RELEVANT RECORDS PERTAINING TO INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE TPE CAUTION LIST ISSUED BY THE R-4 AND BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE, WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE, BY DIRECTING THE R-4 TO FORTH WITH REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE TPE CAUTION LIST PUBLISHED BY THE R-4.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:31064 WP No. 29963 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Petitioner is before this Court praying for the following reliefs:

¶32

"It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for all relevant records pertaining to include the name of the Petitioner in the TPE Caution List issued by the 4^th Respondent and be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate, Writ, Order or Direction as the case may be, by directing the 4^th Respondent to forth with remove the name of the Petitioner from the TPE Caution List published by the 4^th Respondent and grant the Petitioner such other further relief with appropriate Direction or Order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice and equity and allow this writ petition with costs."

¶33

The grievance of the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner was entered into in the caution list issued by the 4^th respondent-Indian Banks Association (in short 'IBA') and thereafter, the petitioner has not been receiving any work through any of the Banks.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:31064 WP No. 29963 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Submission of Sri.Shankara Narayana Bhat.N, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entry of the name of the petitioner in the said TPE caution list by IBA is without following the due procedure prescribed by the IBA itself, more so by not following the principles of natural justice.

¶38

This Court has dealt with this issue in Writ Petition No.30058/2024 disposed of on 24^th February 2026 and has categorically come to a conclusion that the procedure prescribed by the IBA is required to be followed before insertion of any empanelled advocate, surveyor, valuer etc., in the TPE caution list. Admittedly, in the present matter, there is no notice which had been issued to the petitioner before inserting the name of the petitioner in the TPE caution list. Therefore, it clearly establishes that the principles of natural justice have not been

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:31064 WP No. 29963 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

followed. As such, this Court passes the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶45

(ii) The action of the respondents in including/causing the inclusion of the Petitioner's name in the TPE Caution List maintained and published by respondent No.4 - Indian Banks' Association is hereby declared to be illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, in breach of the governing Procedural Guidelines, the Handbook on Policy, Standards and Procedures for Real Estate Valuation by Banks and Housing Finance Institutions in India, and violative of the Petitioner's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:31064 WP No. 29963 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

(iii) Respondent No.4 - Indian Banks' Association is directed to forthwith remove/delete the name of the Petitioner from the TPE Caution List and issue a fresh/new list by deleting the name of the Petitioner, and also upload the fresh/new list without the name of the Petitioner on its website (www.iba.org.in) as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

¶49

(iv) Respondent No.2-bank is directed to take necessary steps to delete the name of the Petitioner from the TPE Caution List or

¶50

any other list showing/indicating the name

¶51

of the Petitioner as disempanelled/ depanelled valuer of the bank, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:31064 WP No. 29963 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

(v) Respondent No 2 - Bank is directed to reconsider the empanelment of the

¶56

Petitioner afresh, on merits, in accordance with the prevailing guidelines and procedures, without being influenced or prejudiced by the impugned inclusion in the TPE Caution List, and to take an appropriate decision and communicate the same to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

¶57

(vi) It is clarified that this Order shall not prevent any respondent bank from taking independent decisions regarding empanelment, continuation, or non-renewal of the Petitioner's services in accordance with law, its internal guidelines and contractual terms, provided such decisions

¶58