Arivazhagan v. The Indian Banks Association
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and W.M.P(MD)No.26116 of 2024 Arivazhagan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Indian Banks' Association, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, World Trade Centre, 6th Floor, Central Building, World Trade Centre Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005.
2.The State Bank of India, Represented by its Deputy General Manager B & O, C.C.O Department, Local Head Office, "Circletop House", 5th Floor, 16, College Lane, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to remove the name of 'A.Arivazhagan' from the IBA Third Party Caution List.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sharath Chandran For R - 2 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar 1/7
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction, directing the first respondent to remove the name of 'A.Arivazhagan' from the IBA Third Party Caution List. 2.The petitioner is a Registered Valuer with the Institution Valuers, India and also certified by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. The second respondent's Valandhur Branch accepted the petitioner's valuation report of P.Jeyaraj and Ammsamani in the year 2011. After a period of 10 years, ie., in the year 2021, the second respondent Bank issued notice seeking clarification for the valuation submitted for the said P.Jeyaraj and Ammsamani. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted explanation. However, the petitioner's name is published in the caution list of the first respondent's official web page. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this present Writ Petition with the above prayer.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 2/7
4.The similar issue has already been dealt with by this Court in the case of NR Rahuram & Co., Vs. Indian Bank-s Association and ors., in W.P.No.17780 of 2017 order dated 30.01.2020, which held as follows :- "?13. However, the first respondent based on the complaint received from the second respondent bank, with regard to the irregularities committed by the petitioner in the valuation of the properties, the first respondent has hosted the petitioner-s name in the caution list in their website affecting his business interest with other member banks of the first respondent association. This will amount to deprivation of fundamental rights of the petitioner, to carry on his business as a valuer with other banks.
Insofar as other banks are concerned, there is no finding against the petitioner that he has indulged in unfair practices, guilty of professional misconduct, violated code of ethics and professional practice. Even as per clause 1.4 of the handbook on policy standards and procedures for real estate valuation by banks and housing finance institutions in India, the said requirement is mandatory. In the case on hand, since there is no finding that the petitioner has committed any of the aforementioned irregularities, with regard to other banks, the hosting of the petitioner-s name in the caution list of the first respondent website is arbitrary, and unconstitutional.
14. Clause 1.4 and 1.5 of the handbook on policy standards and procedures for real estate valuation by banks and housing finance institutions in India reads as follows: 3/7
?1.4 Removal In extreme cases where the valuer has been found to be indulging in unfair practices, guilty of professional misconduct, violating the code of ethics and professional practice, he shall be removed from the panel. The procedure to be followed by the banks / housing finance institutions shall comprise of the following steps : - issue of show cause notice - hearing - appropriate action, including removal from the panel for a period of five years, if charges are found serious 1.5 Re-Empanelment Valuers once removed from the panel of any bank or housing finance institution could be re-empanelled again after a specified period, based on the recommendations of the bank Conflict Resolution Committee. Names of valuers removed shall be reported to the Indian Banks? Association which in turn shall place the names on its caution list.?
15. Further, even under the appointment letter issued by the second respondent, there is no reference that the petitioner has been put on notice about the handbook on policy standards and procedures for real estate valuation by banks and housing finance institutions in India which the first respondent relies upon.
16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the first respondent to remove the name of the petitioner from the caution list in their website within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that insofar as the second respondent bank is 4/7
concerned, they are at liberty to terminate the services of the petitioner in accordance with the appointment letter dated 10.09.2013 which permits them to terminate without reason and without any prior notice.?"
5.In view of the above order, this Court directs the first respondent to remove the name of the petitioner from the caution list in their website within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
6.With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
23.01.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes ps 5/7
To 1.The Indian Banks' Association, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, World Trade Centre, 6th Floor, Central Building, World Trade Centre Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005.
2.The State Bank of India, Represented by its Deputy General Manager B & O, C.C.O Department, Local Head Office, "Circletop House", 5th Floor, 16, College Lane, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.
6/7
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps Order made in 23.01.2025 7/7