IN THE JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. ______ OF 2024

DISTRICT: MUMBAI
In the matter of Article 227 of
The Constitution of India;
AND
In the matter of Article 19 (1)
(g) of the Constitution of India

Subhash Shah and Associates Architects Pvt. Ltd.

…Appellant
Versus

Indian Banking Association

…Respondent no.1
Yes Bank India Pvt. Ltd.
…Respondent no.2
INDEX

Sr. Particulars Page No.

No.
1 Memo of Writ Petition
2 List of Documents
3 Annexure A is the copy of the
proposal email received from the
Respondent no. 2 being dated as on
04.08.2017
4 Annexure B is the copy of details of
the property
5 Annexure C is the copy of quotation
sent to the Respondent no.2
07.08.2017
6 Annexure D is the copy of the email
 pertaining to the approval of the
quotation by Respondent no. 2 sent
forth by the Petitioner being dated as
on 27.10.2017
7 Annexure E are the copies of all the
relevant information received by the
Petitioner for carrying out the
valuation work.
8 Annexure F is the copy of the
valuation report as carried out by the
Petitioner being dated 07.11.2017
9 Annexure G is the copy of the email
being dated 02.03.2023 received from
Respondent no.2 seeking justification
of the valuation report being dated as
on 07.11.2017
10 Annexure H is the copy of the email
being dated 17.03.2023 sent by the
Petitioner in response of the email
dated 02.03.2023 justifying it’s
valuation report
11 Annexure I is the copy of the email
being dated 18.04.2023 sent by the
Respondent no. 2 including of a Show
Cause notice seeking grounds as to
why the Petitioner’s name shall not be
in the ‘Blacklisted Valuers’
12 Annexure J is the copy of email being
dated 06.05.2023 received from the
Respondent no. 2 stating the grounds
for termination of the engagement
13 Annexure K is the copy of the email
being dated 06.05.2023 sent by the
Petitioner to the Respondent no. 2 as a
reply to the email received from the
Petitioner being dated 18.04.2023
14 Annexure L is the copy of Minutes of
the Meeting held between the
Petitioner and the Respondent no. 2
15 Annexure M is the copy of the
Valuation report carried out by
previous Two valuers of the property
in question
16 Annexure N is the copy of the email
 being dated 25.09.2023 sent to CEO of
PVAI (Practicing Valuers Association
of India) Valuation Professional
Organization requesting intervention
17 Annexure O is the copy of email being
dated 25.09.2023 sent to the Managing
Director and CEO of Respondent no. 2
requesting intervention
18 Annexure P is the copy of the email
being dated 26.09.2023 sent to the
President of Council of Architecture
requesting intervention
19 Annexure Q is the copy of the letter
being dated 29.09.2023 sent to the
Institution of Valuers requesting
intervention
20 Annexure R is the copy of the letter
being dated 03.10.2023 sent to the
Hon’ble Office of Prime Minister of
India requesting intervention
21 Annexure S is the copy of the letter
being dated 03.10.2023 sent to the
Respondent no. 1 at it’s registered
office requesting clarification
22 Annexure T is the copy of the letter
being dated 03.10.2023 sent to the RBI
Ombudsman requesting intervention
23 Annexure U is the copy of the
acknowledgement of the e-complaint
filed on PMO Grievance Cell
24 Annexure V is the copy of the legal
notice sent to Respondent no. 1 and
Respondent no. 2
 IN THE JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. ______ OF 2024
DISTRICT: MUMBAI
In the matter of Article 227 of
The Constitution of India;
AND
In the matter of Article 19 (1)
______ (g) of the Constitution of India

1. Subhash Shah and Associates Architects Pvt. Ltd. )

Regd under Council of Architects )
Member of Indian Institute of Architects )
Regd Office – Lunat Mansion, 2nd floor, )
118/120, Mint back road, )
Fort, Mumbai – 400001. )
…Petitioner
V/s.
1. Indian Banking Association )
Association of Indian Banks )
Regd Office – World Trade Centre Complex )
6th floor, Centre 1 building, )
Cuff Parade, Mumbai – 400005. )
…Respondent no.1

2. Yes Bank India Pvt. Ltd. )

Private Sector Bank )
Regd Office – Western Express Highway )
Anand Nagar Vakola, )
Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400055 )
…Respondent no.2

TO,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON’BLE

PUISNE JUDGES OF THI HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITONER ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The Petitioner has filed present writ petition under Article

226, of The Constitution of India challenging the legality,
validity, propriety and arbitrary action by Indian Banking
Association namely keeping the Petitioner in the cautious list
and against arbitrary action of Yes Bank Pvt. Ltd. for
wrongfully and without any satisfactory response referring the
name of the Petitioner to the IBA. Both actions resulting into
revocation/denial of work by different Banks and Financial
Institutions to the Petitioner.

2. The Petitioner is a Sole Proprietorship Company and the

Proprietor, Mr. Subhash Narandas Shah is an Architect
Private Limited Company registered under Council of
Architects and a member of Indian Institute of Architects.
3. Respondent No. 1 is a voluntary association of Banks namely,
Indian Banking Association and a representative of body of
Indian Banks and Financial Institution, having it’s registered
office at World Trade Centre Complex, 6th floor, Centre 1
building, Cuff Parade, Mumbai – 400005 (herein referred to
as ‘IBA’ for the sake of brevity).

4. Respondent No. 2 is a Private Sector Bank namely, Yes Bank

India Pvt. Ltd. having it’s registered office at Western express
highway, Anand nagar, Vakola, Santacruz East, Mumbai –
400055. (herein referred to as ‘Yes Bank’ for the sake of
brevity).

5. The. Petitioner has filed present writ petition under Article

226, of The Constitution of India challenging the legality,
validity, propriety and arbitrary action by Indian Banking
Association namely keeping the Petitioner in the cautious list
and against arbitrary action of Yes Bank Pvt. Ltd. for
wrongfully and without any satisfactory response referring the
name of the Petitioner to the IBA. Both actions resulting into
revocation/denial of work by different Banks and Financial
Institutions to the Petitioner. Facts and circumstances giving
rise to filing of this petition are as under:

6. That the Petitioner had received a proposal to carry out

valuation of property via email dated 04th August, 2017 from
Ms. Bhakti Gada of Respondent no.2. The details of the
properties are as follows:
 6.1.Land and Building at Plot no 11, Block-1, Backbay
Reclamation Estate CS no1689, Opp. Jaihind College, A –
Road, Off Marine Drive, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020.
Owned by Vasant Sagar Properties Pvt Ltd.

6.2.Land and Building at Plot no B-10, Lawrence Road Abutting

the Service Road to Mahatma Gandhi Road, (60 Ring Road),
Industrial Area, New Delhi owned by Rama Associates Ltd.
The proposal email being dated as 04/08/2017 has been
annexed herewith as ‘Annexure A’ The details of the
property are annexed herewith as ‘Annexure B’

7. That the Petitioner agreed the aforesaid proposal sent by the

Respondent no. 2 and sent forth a quotation via email dated as on
07th August, 2017 to the Respondent no.2. Annexed herewith as
‘Annexure C’ is the copy of the email being dated as on
07/08/2017.

8. That the Respondent no.2 via email dated as on 27 th October,

2017 agreed to the quotation sent forth by the Petitioner and gave
it’s assent to proceed with the valuation work. Annexed herewith
as ‘Annexure D’ is the copy of the email being dated as on
27/10/2017.

9. That Furthermore in the interim upon enquiry by the Petitioner

an email as on 01st November 2017 was duly received from Mr.
Amit Poddar of the Respondent no. 2, stating to liaise with Mr.
Shubham Shree of PAN Indian Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. for
ascertaining any information, to seek any documents or
 clarification with respect to carrying out the valuation work.
Copies of all the relevant information duly received by the
Petitioner are annexed as ‘Annexure E’.

10.That the Petitioner as on 07th November, 2017 carried out the

valuation of the above stated properties in two different methods
i.e. A) Fair Market Value and B) Potential Value and duly
submitted the valuation report based on this two valuation
methods to the Respondent no.2.

11.That as per the valuation report, the property as per Fair Market
value was valued at Rs.91,67,61,000(Ninety-One Crore Sixty
Seven lakhs and Sixty One thousand Rupees) and as per
Potential Value method the property was valued at Rs.
300.50(Three-Hundred Crore and Fifty lakh Rupees). Reports of
both the valuation are annexed herein as ‘Annexure F’.

12.That thereafter the Petitioner received an email dated as on 02 nd

March, 2023, from Mr. Prasad Dandekar, Head of CCVG
(Corporate Collateral Valuation Group) of the Respondent no.2,
Group Vice President, seeking justification for the valuation
work done by the Petitioner of the above stated properties. This
justification was sought from the Petitioner on the grounds that
the Respondent no.2 in it’s internal process conducted valuation
of the above stated property by another empanled valuer and
there was a substantial erosion in the valuation. Copy of the
email has been annexed herewith as ‘Annexure G’.

13.That the Petitioner responded via email dated as on 17 th March,

2023 to the above email, stating that it’s employee, namely Mr.
Pratik Jain, employed as an engineer in the Petitioner’s
Company, visited the property as on 27 th October, 2017 and
submitted the valuation report as on 07 th November, 2017 and
following shall be noted with respect to the Valuation report
submitted:

13.1. That the Valuation report states the Potential value of

the property after Redevelopment as requested by the
Respondent no.2.
13.2. That the Estimated value of the project after
completion was valued at Rs. 300.50 crores (Three Hundred
crores and Fifty Lakhs), which shall be fetched after
demolishing of the existing structures and completion of
redevelopment. It was also outlined by the Petitioner in the
valuation report that fetching the above Potential value of the
property is subject to approvals from appropriate competent
authorities and redevelopment of the same.
13.3. That it has also been clearly stated by the Petitioner in
it’s Valuation report that in the event of various reasons, any
decrease in the Potential value, the Valuer shall not be held
liable.
13.4. That the Valuation was carried based on the
requirement put forth by the Respondent no.2 and on the
basis of all the information and documents provided to the
Petitioner. The Petitioner’s Report is merely an opinion and
has no legal or contractual obligation on the Petitioner’s part
and it is upto the sole discretion of the Respondent no.2 to
accept or reject the Petitioner’s report. Any reasoning to be
sought after the lapse of 6 years is not valid in any manner.
Copy of the email has been annexed herewith as ‘Annexure
H’
14. That, to the shock and surprise of the Petitioner thereafter as
on 18th April, 2023 received via email a Show Cause
Notice via email from Mr. Mukesh Kumar of the Respondent
no.2, designated as Group Executive Vice President (Zonal
Head – Corporate Credit Administration Department) stating
the following:
14.1. That the Petitioner’s Valuation report dated as on 07 th
November, 2017 was labeled ‘Erroneous’ and on it’s basis
Respondent no.2 had been induced to further grant/renew the
credit facilities to the concerned borrower.
14.2. That the Respondent no.2 in it’s internal process
carried out a new valuation of the said property by another
Empanaled Valuer and the New valuation of the property
was arrived at a value of Rs. 66,34,75,680/- (Sixty-Six crore
Thirty Four lakh Seventy-Five thousand Six hundred and
Eighty Rupees Only).
14.3. That based on the New valuation report and the report
submitted by the Petitioner, the Respondent no.2 sought a
vast differentiation. On the basis of such differentiation
Respondent no.2 conducted an Internal investigation and
concluded that there were several breaches, inconsistencies
and violations in the Valuation report submitted by the
Petitioner.
14.4. That the Respondent no.2 upon evaluation of the
response sent by the Petitioner dated as on 17 th March, 2023
via email held it to be not satisfactory and hence rejected it.
14.5. That there were several other breaches, inconsistencies
and violations on the Petitioner’s part in it’s previous
engagement with Respondent no.2 which resulted into
 termination of engagement of the Petitioner with the
Respondent no.2 as on 22nd September, 2022.
14.6. That the Petitioner was held liable for the wrongful
violation, breaches and inconsistencies and was called upon
to Show Cause as to why claim for the losses suffered by the
Respondent no.2 not be imposed on the Petitioner and on
what grounds or justification the Petitioner’s name shall not
be placed in the ‘Blacklisted Valuers’ list maintained by
Indian Banking Association. The copy of the email received
by the Petitioner is annexed herewith as ‘Annexure I’

15.That the Petitioner thereafter responded to the above Show cause

Notice via email dated as on 06 th May, 2023 addressing the
following:
15.1. That the Petitioner was surprised to receive the above
Show Cause notice alleging the wrongful violation, breaches
and inconsistencies and denies the same during it’s tenure of
engagement with Respondent no.2.
15.2. That Furthermore, the Petitioner mentioned that the
Show Cause notice does not specifically point out any
wrongful violation, breaches and inconsistencies it clearly
states ‘owing to certain internal reviews, Yes Bank is not in a
position to continue with the said engagement’. Copy of the
email received from Respondent no.2 being dated has been
annexed as ‘Annexure J’
15.3. That the Petitioner again explained that the value
arrived in the Valuation report submitted is based on after
completion of redevelopment of the project in all aspects. It
was clearly stated in the Valuation report that the plot fetches
potentiality of redevelopment by acquiring the additional
 incentive FSI available. The property was evaluated under
Land Development Method which is generally used to
determine the value of large parcels of undeveloped land or
land not developed to it’s highest potential value. The
property in issues will fetch the value mentioned in the report
only after demolishing the existing structures, approval of
incentive FSI from appropriate authority and completion of
the redevelopment subject to all necessary approvals from
the appropriate authorities.

15.4. That the Petitioner also inquired in it’s email as to

whether the Value arrived at in the Respondent no.2’s
Valuation report amounting to Rs. 66,34,75,680/- (Sixty-Six
crore Thirty Four Lakh Seventy Five Thousand Six Hundred
and Eighty Only) was on the basis of completion of the
redevelopment or the existing value.
15.5. That the Petitioner to comment on the said report and
to inform about the differences of the valuation amount
requested the copy of the Valuation report carried out by the
New valuer appointed by the Respondent no.2 valuing the
property at a value of Rs. 66,34,75,680/- (Sixty-Six crore
Thirty Four Lakh Seventy Five Thousand Six Hundred and
Eighty Only).
15.6. That the Petitioner further had already stated in it’s
Valuation report that in the event of various reasons, any
decrease in the potential value, the valuer should not be held
responsible in the future date and the bank is solely
responsible to accept or reject our valuation report while
disbursing the loan amount which can be done as per the
 banks internal investigation. The copy of the aforesaid email
response has been annexed herewith as ‘Annexure K’

16. That thereafter a meeting was conducted to address the aforesaid

matter as on 09th May, 2023, which was attended by Mr. Mukesh
Kumar, Mr. Prasad Dandekar and Mr. Subhash Shah, Aayush
Jain, Venkatesh Iyer, at the registered office of Respondent no.2
The meeting was headed by Mr. Mukesh Kumar. In this meeting
the issue in hand was discussed wherein The Petitioner
represented the facts of the matter in issue, gave reasoning for
it’s valuation, method adopted for the same. To which Mr.
Mukesh Kumar and Mr. Prasad Dandekar stated that they will
reply in due time upon the facts and reasoning presented by my
client. The Minutes of the meeting have been annexed as
‘Annexure L’.

17.That furthermore the Petitioner also like to bring to the notice of

this Hon’ble High Court that previously the valuation of the said
property was carried out by two different valuers namely, Apte
Associates in the year 2014 and Bhide Associates in the year
2015. Wherein both the above named Valuers valued the
aforesaid property at a value of Rs. 300 crore. (Three Hundred
Crore Rupees), which is similar to the figure ascertained through
it’s valuation process in it’s Valuation report. Copies of the
Valuation report of the previous two valuers are annexed as
‘Annexure M’.

18. That in the interim and before presenting the said Writ before
this Hon’ble High Court the Petitioner had approached and
addressed the following authorities for intervention/resolving the
aforesaid issue in hand.
18.1. Mr. Umesh N Kanade (Chief Executive Officer) of
PVAI (Practicing Valuers Association of India) Valuation
Professional Organization via email dated 25th September,
2023. Copy of the email being dated 25/09/2023 has been
annexed herewith as ‘Annexure N’.

18.2. Mr. Prashant Kumar Managing Director and Chief

Executive Officer of Yes Bank via email dated 25 th
September, 2023. Via email dated 25th September, 2023.
Copy of the email being dated 25/09/2023 has been annexed
herewith as ‘Annexure O’.

18.3. The President of Council of Architecture via email

dated as on 26th September, 2023. Copy of the email being
dated 26/09/2023 has been annexed herewith as ‘Annexure
P’.

18.4. The IOV (Institute of Valuers) RVF at it’s registered

address via letter dated as on 28th September, 2023. Copy of
the letter being dated 28/09/2023 has been annexed herewith
as ‘Annexure Q’.

18.5. The Prime Minister of India at the office of the Hon’ble

Office of the Prime Minister via letter dated as on 3 rd
October, 2023. Copy of the letter being dated 03/10/2023 has
been annexed herewith as ‘Annexure R’.
 18.6. The IBA at it’s registered address via letter dated as on
3rd October, 2023. Copy of the letter being dated 03/10/2023
has been annexed herewith as ‘Annexure S’.

18.7. The RBI Ombudsman at it’s office C/o Reserve Bank

of India, 4th floor, RBI Byculla Office Building , Opp.
Mumbai Central Railway Station, Byculla, Mumbai – 400
008 via letter dated as on 3rd October, 2023. Copy of the
letter being dated 03/10/2023 has been annexed herewith as
‘Annexure T’.

18.8. Registration of complaint on PMO Grievance Cell

against Yes Bank as on 04th October, 2023. Copy of the
acknowledgement of the e-complaint has been annexed
herewith as ‘Annexure U’.

19. That the Copy of the Legal Notices sent to Respondent No.1,
Respondent No. 2 and the Reserve Bank of India has been
annexed herewith as ‘Annexure V’.

20. That aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary action on the part of
the Respondents, the Petitioner have approached this Hon’ble
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the
following amongst other grounds which are taken without
prejudice to each other.

GROUNDS
A. That the impugned action is mala-fide, arbitrary and causing
grave hardship to the Petitioner.
B. That Upon issuance of the Show-cause notice, to the Petitioner,
the Yes Bank that is Respondent No. 2 removed the Petitioner
from it’s Panel of Valuers on the allegation of certain
irregularities committed by the Petitioner.

C. That thereafter the name of the Petitioner was recommended by

the Respondent No. 2 for being put up on the Caution List of
Respondent No. 1.

D. That the actions of the Respondent No. 1 does not at all show the
application of judicious mind, by not giving any independent
hearing to the Petitioner at any point of time before putting up the
name of the Petitioner on it’s Caution List.

E. That the Clause 3.4 of the IBA Handbook provides that in every
Bank, there shall be a Bank Valuation Conflict Resolution
Committee for addressing “all conflicts and arriving at an
amicable solution”. The composition of the committee is to be
decided by the respective Banks but shall include, as per Clause
3.4, representatives from professional valuer
associations/independent reputable valuers.

F. In the present case, there was no representation in the committee

of the Bank, which decided against the petitioner, of any valuer or
any valuers’ association. Clause 3.4 goes on to contemplate in
case of misconduct by any valuer, upon issuance of show cause
notice and hearing the valuer and deliberation by the committee
in case the committee opines that the charges against the valuer
are serious, to remove the valuer from the panel and depending on
the seriousness of the case, to empanel once against only after a
gap of five years. The committee is also empowered to impose
 suitable fines depending on the severity of the case against the
valuer.

G. Lastly, Clause 3.4 also contemplates names of the valuers to be

placed in the caution list of the IBA. Thus, the contemplation of
putting the name of a particular recalcitrant valuer on the caution
list of the IBA as per the Handbook of the IBA is in addition to
the Circular of the RBI.

H. Whereas such provision of placement on the caution list in terms

of Clause 3.4 might not have any statutory force, in the present
instance, the action taken against the petitioner by the Bank fulfils
all the ingredients of the situation envisaged in Clause 3.4 and, as
such, the decision at the first instance ought to have been taken by
a Bank Valuation Conflict Resolution Committee having a
representation of valuers or valuers’ association. Non-
representation of the valuers in the committee itself vitiates its
decision on such count alone, on the principle of coram non
judice.

I. On the other aspect of the matter, a perusal of both the show

cause notices issued against the petitioners indicates that the
allegation were of a nature that the petitioners had flouted norms
and had given a valuation report on inflated and unrealistic basis.
However, it is well-settled that to establish an allegation of fraud,
details and particulars of the exact acts of fraud or collusion are to
be disclosed for the accused person to give proper defence to the
same.

J. Having not done so in the show cause notices, in fact having not
uttered anything regarding any alleged fraudulent act of the
 petitioner but only mentioned miscalculations and erroneous
inflated reports having been filed by the petitioner no. 1, the Bank
could not have come to a conclusion that the petitioner no. 1 was
guilty of fraud.

K. Neither of the show cause show notices indicates any specific and
particular allegation of fraudulent acts done by the petitioner no.
1 or the petitioners having colluded with any interested party in
inflating the valuations as alleged.

L. Morever, it is well-settled that a show cause notice also has to

clearly mention the exact action to which the accused person is
amenable in the event satisfactory answer cannot be given to the
show cause. In the present instance, neither of the show cause
notices clearly indicated that petitioner no. 1 would be held guilty
of fraud in terms of the RBI Circular and their name would be put
up on the caution list of the IBA on such score. The action
contemplated in terms of the show cause notice was that if the
petitioner no. 1 fails to give proper explanation to offer and
“appropriate action” would be initiated as per the Bank’s policy.
Although the proposed action of reporting the name of the
petitioner no.1 for inclusion in the Caution List was mentioned,
there was no mention of the RBI Circular pertaining to fraud in
the said contemplated action and it was unclear whether such
recommendation would be for being put up on the IBA Caution
List under the RBI Fraude Circular or under Clause 3.4 of the
IBA Guidelines, both of which have similar provisions in that
regard, but having different consequences.

M. In the absence of any specific particulars of fraud either in the

show cause notices or the impugned decision, the Bank acted
 without jurisdiction in holding that the petitioner no. 1 was guilty
of fraudulent action and referring the name of the petitioner no.1
for being put up in the caution list of the IBA. In fact, the minutes
of the committee decision, whereby the petitioner was indicated,
also does not show that any specific allegation of fraud was
mentioned or substantiated in the said resolution.

N. Thus, the impugned action of holding that the petitioner guilty of

fraud as well as terminating the petitioner and putting up the
name of the petitioner on the caution list of the IBA were de hors
jurisdiction and against the law and relevant guidelines.

O. That the Petitioner’s name currently is still standing in the list of

‘Blacklisted Valuers’ maintained by the Respondent no.1. The
Petitioner was not given an reasonable opportunity of being heard
by the Respondent no.1 and Respondent no.2 to show cause it’s
case as to why it’s name shall be depnaled and be place in the list
of ‘Caution List’ and neither the Petitioner has received any
explanation or clarification from the Respondent no.2 with
respect to it’s New Valuation report. This actions of the
Respondent no.1 and Respondent no.2 are against the Principals
of Natural Justice and have resulted into undue hardships and
violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constituion of India.

P. That the Petitioner would also like to bring to the notice of this
Hon’ble High Court pursuant to point (14) that as on 18 th
October, 2023 the Petitioner received a letter from Mr. Sanjit,
designated as Vice President 11, Wholesale Banking Operations
at Axis Bank Limited, stating that as the name of the Petitioner is
appearing in the list maintained by the Respondent no.1 i.e.
(IBA’s Caution List), Axis Bank has decided to de-empanel the
 Petitioner from the Panel of Valuers. The letter received from
Axis Bank has been annexed herewith as Annexure ‘L’. To which
the Petitioner responded that it’s name has been wrongfully and
without any valid ground mentioned in the Caution List of valuers
maintained by the Respondent no.1

Q. That hence with respect to the aforesaid facts and circumstance it

is cognizant that the Petitioner has responded to the Show Cause
notice sent by the Respondent no.2. The Petitioner as a result of
the actions of Respondent no.1 and Respondent no.2 has faced a
grievous injury to it’s lawful right conferred under Article 19(1)
(g) of the Constitution of India, which states that, “Right to
practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business to all citizens.”

R. That the Petitioner thereafter states that as a result of violation of

it’s right to carry on any trade or business, the Petitioner has
incurred heavy losses, has lost it’s cliental base, affected it’s
revenue and hence is unable to pay any salary, remuneration
expenses and compensation to any of it’s employees. It’s years of
cultivated and long standing Goodwill and reputation in the
Valuer’s Society and in the market which it operates has taken a
huge blow as a result of such actions of Respondent no.1 and
Respondent no.2.

21. That the Petitioner states that under such circumstances

Petitioner have approached this Hon’ble Court for the reliefs
sought hereunder, Petitioner have no other alternate remedy but
for present Writ Petition against the highhanded action of the
Respondents. Petitioner have good case on merits and sanguine
hoper of success.
22.That the Petitioner is also praying for the interim reliefs, if the
interim relief is granted to prejudice is likely to be caused to the
Respondents per contra if no interim reliefs are granted,
Petitioners would suffer grave hardships which cannot be
compensated in terms of money.

23.That the Petitioner craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete,

modify or annual any of the submissions made in this Petition
memo with prior permission of this Hon’ble Court.

24.That Petitioner have not filed any any other petition application
or any other proceedings before this Hon’ble Court any other
Court.

25.That Petitioner has not received any Notice of Caveat from the
Respondents.

26.IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT

a) The Writ petition may kindly be allowed;

b) By appropriate writ, order and/or direction this Hon’ble Court
may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned
letter/order/decision dated___________issued by IBA.
c) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent
to forthwith remove the name of the petitioner from the caution
list uploaded by them in their web page.
d) Pending the disposal of this Writ Petition this Hon’ble Court may
kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned
letter/order/decision dated_____________issued by IBA.
e) Pending the disposal of this present Writ petition this Hon’ble
High Court be pleased to stay the effect, operation and
implementation of the impugned order i.e. ‘Caution List’
maintained by the Respondent no.1

f) Interim and ad interim in terms of prayer clause‘d’ & ‘e’ be

granted.

g) Any other and further relief in favour of the Petitioners be

granted as this Hon’ble High Court deems fit and proper.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE

PETITIONER IS DUTYBOUND AND SHALL EVER PRAY

Date: ___/___/2024

Place: Mumbai Advocate for the Petitioner

VAKALATNAMA
I Mr. _______________, Age :_____Occu: ______________ Flat
No.___, ___________________________________________ the
Appellant above named do hereby appoint and authorise Mr Ashish
D. Deshpande and Miss. Sushrita A. Daga, Advocate Bombay High
Court, to act, appear and plead for me in the present case.

In witness whereof I have set our hands to this writing on

Dated this________Day of _______ 2024

Appellant

IN THE JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

 HIGH COURT CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. ______ OF 2024

DISTRICT: MUMBAI
In the matter of Article 227 of
The Constitution of India;
AND
In the matter of Article 19 (1)
(g) of the Constitution of India

Subhash Shah and Associates Architects

Pvt. Ltd.
…Appellant
Versus

Indian Banking Association

…Respondent no.1
Yes Bank India Pvt. Ltd.
…Respondent no.2

MEMO OF APPEAL

ASHISH D. DESHPANDE &

SUSHRITA A. DAGA
Advocate High Court, 284,
1st floor, Raghuleela Mall,
Off S.V. Road,
Kandivali West,
Mumbai – 400 067.
Contact: 9930335297/8390966126
 IN THE JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. ______ OF 2024

DISTRICT: MUMBAI
In the matter of Article 226 of
The Constitution of India;
AND
In the matter of Article 19 (1)
(g) of the Constitution of India

Subhash Shah and Associates Architects Pvt. Ltd.

…Appellant
Versus

Indian Banking Association

…Respondent no.1
Yes Bank India Pvt. Ltd.
…Respondent no.2

LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON:

1. Annexure A is the copy of the proposal email received from

the Respondent no. 2 being dated as on 04.08.2017.

2. Annexure B is the copy of details of the property.

3. Annexure C is the copy of quotation sent to the Respondent

no.2 07.08.2017.
4. Annexure D is the copy of the email pertaining to the
approval of the quotation by Respondent no. 2 sent forth by
the Petitioner being dated as on 27.10.2017.

5. Annexure E are the copies of all the relevant information

received by the Petitioner for carrying out the valuation work.

6. Annexure F is the copy of the valuation report as carried out

by the Petitioner being dated 07.11.2017.

7. Annexure G is the copy of the email being dated 02.03.2023

received from Respondent no.2 seeking justification of the
valuation report being dated as on 07.11.2017.

8. Annexure H is the copy of the email being dated 17.03.2023

sent by the Petitioner in response of the email dated
02.03.2023 justifying it’s valuation report.

9. Annexure I is the copy of the email being dated 18.04.2023

sent by the Respondent no. 2 including of a Show Cause
notice seeking grounds as to why the Petitioner’s name shall
not be in the ‘Blacklisted Valuers’.

10.Annexure J is the copy of email being dated 06.05.2023

received from the Respondent no. 2 stating the grounds for
termination of the engagement.
11.Annexure K is the copy of the email being dated 06.05.2023
sent by the Petitioner to the Respondent no. 2 as a reply to the
email received from the Petitioner being dated 18.04.2023.

12.Annexure L is the copy of Minutes of the Meeting held

between the Petitioner and the Respondent no. 2.

13.Annexure M is the copy of the Valuation report carried out by

previous Two valuers of the property in question.

14.Annexure N is the copy of the email being dated 25.09.2023

sent to CEO of PVAI (Practicing Valuers Association of
India) Valuation Professional Organization requesting
intervention.

15.Annexure O is the copy of email being dated 25.09.2023 sent

to the Managing Director and CEO of Respondent no. 2
requesting intervention.

16.Annexure P is the copy of the email being dated 26.09.2023

sent to the President of Council of Architecture requesting
intervention.

17.Annexure Q is the copy of the letter being dated 29.09.2023

sent to the Institution of Valuers requesting intervention.
18.Annexure R is the copy of the letter being dated 03.10.2023
sent to the Hon’ble Office of Prime Minister of India
requesting intervention.

19.Annexure S is the copy of the letter being dated 03.10.2023

sent to the Respondent no. 1 at it’s registered office
requesting clarification.

20.Annexure T is the copy of the letter being dated 03.10.2023

sent to the RBI Ombudsman requesting intervention.

21.Annexure U is the copy of the acknowledgement of the e-

complaint filed on PMO Grievance Cell.

22.Annexure V is the copy of the legal notice sent to Respondent

no. 1 and Respondent no. 2.
IN THE JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. ______ OF 2024

DISTRICT: MUMBAI
In the matter of Article 227 of
The Constitution of India;
AND
In the matter of Article 19 (1)
(g) of the Constitution of India

Subhash Shah and Associates Architects Pvt. Ltd.

…Appellant
Versus

Indian Banking Association

…Respondent no.1
Yes Bank India Pvt. Ltd.
…Respondent no.2

LIST OF WITNESSES
1. The Appellant in person.
2. Any other person with permission of the Hon’ble Authority.

Advocate for the Appellant

IN THE JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. ______ OF 2024

DISTRICT: MUMBAI
In the matter of Article 227 of
The Constitution of India;
AND
In the matter of Article 19 (1)
(g) of the Constitution of India

Subhash Shah and Associates Architects Pvt. Ltd.

…Appellant
Versus

Indian Banking Association

…Respondent no.1
Yes Bank India Pvt. Ltd.
…Respondent no.2

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL

I, Mr. ____________________________________________ above
named, herein do hereby state on Solemn affirmation as under:

a. I say that I have duly considered the Appeal, and documents

annexed hereto and the Appeal has been duly signed by me
and I am signing this Affidavit in support of the Appeal
pleadings and the contents of the same are true and correct.
b. I further state that I have mentioned all the facts in my Appeal
and the same may be kindly treated as a Part and Parcel of the
present Affidavit.

c. I further state that the facts and details of the present Appeal
have been completely mentioned by me and the same are true
to my knowledge, belief and information and the Appeal is
properly affirmed.

Appellant

Advocate for the Appellant

 VAKALATNAMA

I Mr. _______________, Age :_____Occu: ______________ Flat

No.___, ___________________________________________ the
Appellant above named do hereby appoint and authorise Mr Ashish
D. Deshpande and Miss. Sushrita A. Daga, Advocate Bombay High
Court, to act, appear and plead for me in the present case.

In witness whereof I have set our hands to this writing on

Dated this________Day of __________ 2024

Appellant
 IN THE JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
HIGH COURT CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. ______ OF 2024

DISTRICT: MUMBAI
In the matter of Article 227 of
The Constitution of India;
AND
In the matter of Article 19 (1)
(g) of the Constitution of India

Subhash Shah and Associates Architects

Pvt. Ltd.
…Appellant
Versus

Indian Banking Association

…Respondent no.1
Yes Bank India Pvt. Ltd.
…Respondent no.2

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT

ASHISH D. DESHPANDE &

SUSHRITA A. DAGA
Advocate High Court, 284,
1st floor, Raghuleela Mall,
Off S.V. Road,
Kandivali West,
Mumbai – 400 067.
Contact: 9930335297/8390966126
 IN THE JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. ______ OF 2024
DISTRICT: MUMBAI
In the matter of Article 227 of
The Constitution of India;
AND
In the matter of Article 19 (1)
______ (g) of the Constitution of India

2. Subhash Shah and Associates Architects Pvt. Ltd. )

Regd under Council of Architects )
Member of Indian Institute of Architects )
Regd Office – Lunat Mansion, 2nd floor, )
118/120, Mint back road, )
Fort, Mumbai – 400001. )
…Petitioner
V/s.
3. Indian Banking Association )
Association of Indian Banks )
Regd Office – World Trade Centre Complex )
6th floor, Centre 1 building, )
Cuff Parade, Mumbai – 400005. )
…Respondent no.1

4. Yes Bank India Pvt. Ltd. )

Private Sector Bank )
Regd Office – Western Express Highway )
Anand Nagar Vakola, )
Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400055 )
…Respondent no.2
 VAKALATNAMA

I Mr. _______________, Age :_____Occu: ______________ Flat

No.___, ___________________________________________ the
Appellant above named do hereby appoint and authorise Mr Ashish
D. Deshpande and Miss. Sushrita A. Daga, Advocate Bombay High
Court, to act, appear and plead for me in the present case.

In witness whereof I have set our hands to this writing on

Dated this________Day of _______ 2024

Appellant

ASHISH D. DESHPANDE &

SUSHRITA A. DAGA
Advocate High Court, 284,
1st floor, Raghuleela Mall,
Off S.V. Road,
Kandivali West,
Mumbai – 400 067.
Contact: 9930335297/8390966126