Writ petition challenging the listing of petitioner's name as involved in fraud on a bank website for compensation and apology. Court rejected petitioner's claim that information was not deleted and dismissed petition citing confirmation of deletion.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.17633 of 2016 (Through hybrid mode)
Bijay Kumar Jena
…. Petitioner
Mr. Suresh Tripathy, Senior Advocate
-versus-
…. State Bank of India and others Opposite parties
Order No.
Mr.Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Senior Advocate for O.Ps.1 and 2 (SBI) Mr. A. Patnaik, Advocate for O.P.3 CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA ORDER 07.12.2021
Page 1 of 5
// 2 //
rejoinder on leave obtained, copy served in Court today upon Mr. Patnaik, learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.3. Mr. Tripathy submits, copy for opposite party bank will be served in course of the day.
“ Therefore, the Bank advised the petitioner Advocate vide Letter No.808 dated 27.08.2011 and No.1170 dated 27.09.2011 to submit show cause for submitting false TIR. The Petitioner submitted the show cause reply, but the same was not satisfactory.”
He then draws attention to annexure-9 in the rejoinder at page 23 to submit, explanation was given by his client on the letter disclosed.
“ On the basis of your Title Investigation Report dated 09/11/2006 of the property of Shri Sudhakar Sahu, a housing loan of Rs.1321000/- was sanctioned on 10/11/2006. You have certified in para 5 of Certificate of title of the TIR that “ Shri Sudhakar Sahoo has acquired absolute, clear and marketable title over the schedule property and further certified that the title deeds are genuine and a valid mortgage
Page 2 of 5
// 3 //
can be created and the said mortgage would be enforceable”
02. As per the latest development on the basis of our inspection we observe that Shri Amit Kumar Das is the rightful owner of the property as he has purchased the property first and Shir Sudhakar Sahoo is the subsequent purchaser of the same property. (sold to him for the second time).
03. Under the above circumstances, kindly explain and substantiate the TIR submitted by you on the said property to protects the interest of the Bank.”
A month later by letter dated 27th September, 2011 the bank informed petitioner that no explanation had been received and, therefore, it presumed that he does not have further explanation in the matter.
“ Before reporting to IBA, banks have to satisfy themselves of the involvement of third parties concerned and also provide them with an opportunity of being heard. Ii this regard the banks should follow normal procedures and the processes followed should be suitably recorded. On the basis of such information, IBA would, in turn, prepare caution lists of such their parties for circulation among the banks.”
He submits, as such, on his client being satisfied that there was no explanation, by communication dated 11th February, 2014, inter alia , petitioner’s name was reported to opposite party no.3 for being
Page 3 of 5
// 4 //
included in the caution list. He submits, further, by subsequent letter dated 7th February, 2015 his client sought necessary action from opposite party no.3, inter alia, to delete/withdraw petitioner’s name from the caution list.
“ It has come to our knowledge from reliable sources that you have been depaneled/removed by some of the Banks from their list of panel advocates. In view of the above, the matter has been reported to our higher authorities to take a decision whether to continue your name in our Bank’s pane of Advocates.
In view of the above circumstances, you are requested to offer your comments on the above, within seven days of receipt of this letter, for our further needful in the matter.”
He submits, the information continued to be available in the website, hence the writ petition.
Page 4 of 5
// 5 //
(Arindam Sinha) Judge
Prasant
Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether worthy of being maintained and disposed of the writ petition challenging the listing of petitioner's name as involved in fraud on a bank website.
Bijay Kumar Jena
State Bank of India
opposite party no.3
Arindam Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
