<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Public-law scrutiny of banking fraud caution lists bars blacklisting advocates for alleged negligence without fraud or disciplinary process.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102303</link>
    <description>Article 226 scrutiny extends to private bodies performing public functions where their actions have a public law character and affect legally protected rights. A banking-sector Caution List maintained under RBI guidelines could therefore be challenged when it affected an advocate&#039;s reputation, engagements and right to practise. Fraud requires dishonest intent or deliberate facilitation; alleged negligence in a title-verification opinion, without fraud, collusion or criminality, cannot justify listing. Statutory disciplinary jurisdiction over advocates&#039; professional conduct rests exclusively with Bar Councils, so banks cannot use the Caution List to determine misconduct. The advocate&#039;s entry was removed, and the Bar Council of India was directed to audit disciplinary mechanisms.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2026 08:20:38 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2026 08:20:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=914899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Public-law scrutiny of banking fraud caution lists bars blacklisting advocates for alleged negligence without fraud or disciplinary process.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102303</link>
      <description>Article 226 scrutiny extends to private bodies performing public functions where their actions have a public law character and affect legally protected rights. A banking-sector Caution List maintained under RBI guidelines could therefore be challenged when it affected an advocate&#039;s reputation, engagements and right to practise. Fraud requires dishonest intent or deliberate facilitation; alleged negligence in a title-verification opinion, without fraud, collusion or criminality, cannot justify listing. Statutory disciplinary jurisdiction over advocates&#039; professional conduct rests exclusively with Bar Councils, so banks cannot use the Caution List to determine misconduct. The advocate&#039;s entry was removed, and the Bar Council of India was directed to audit disciplinary mechanisms.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2026 08:20:38 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102303</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>