The Calcutta High Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to decide claims regarding the unauthorized disclosure of bank account statements or related indemnity/criminal directions when there exist disputed facts that require further evidence. The judgment reaffirms existing precedent limiting the writ court’s role in factually complex disputes and is binding authority within West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/29016/2023 of KUSHAL POLYSACKS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. Vs UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0607072023 |
| Date of Registration | 21-12-2023 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law / Banking Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition is maintainable for indemnity/criminal direction claims arising from alleged unauthorized bank disclosures when disputed facts exist. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The writ court cannot ascertain or adjudicate disputed factual questions, such as whether information was improperly provided by the bank to a third party, especially where details regarding directorship changes are contested. The presence of factual disputes takes the matter outside the scope of writ jurisdiction, and appropriate relief can be sought before a competent forum which can examine evidence. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering maintainability of writ petitions with factual disputes in banking/indemnity contexts. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clearly reiterates that disputed questions of fact are not to be adjudicated in writ proceedings.
- Lawyers must advise clients to pursue appropriate remedies before competent civil/criminal forums when facts are contested, even in banking law contexts involving alleged unauthorized disclosures.
- It is emphasised in the judgment that in the case of complex or disputed factual matrices, writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum for relief.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court recorded that petitioners sought both indemnity for alleged loss due to unauthorized disclosure of bank account information and initiation of criminal proceedings against the responsible bank officer.
- The petitioners contended that information was provided to an erstwhile director, but the bank maintained it had no prior notice of any change in directorship.
- The bench concluded that determining whether information was wrongly disclosed involved disputed questions of fact, including whether proper information about directorship changes was conveyed to the bank.
- The writ court, not being equipped to conduct a detailed factual inquiry, found it inappropriate to grant relief in writ jurisdiction.
- The court therefore dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioners at liberty to seek remedies before the appropriate forum.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners:
- Sought a direction for the bank to indemnify them for losses arising from unauthorized account statement disclosure.
- Requested initiation of criminal proceedings against the officer responsible for disclosure.
- Claimed information was provided to an erstwhile director.
Respondent Bank:
- Submitted that removal of the director was not communicated to the bank.
- Asserted several disputed factual circumstances and absence of clear evidence.
Factual Background
The petitioners alleged that the respondent bank unlawfully disclosed their account statements to a third party, specifically to an erstwhile director. The bank account had remained dormant for a considerable period due to incomplete KYC updates. Petitioners sought judicial directions for indemnity and for criminal proceedings against the officer involved. The bank contested receipt of any formal information regarding the change of director and disputed the factual basis of the petitioners’ claims.
Statutory Analysis
- The court did not engage in statutory interpretation as the case was decided on the maintainability issue—specifically, the scope of writ jurisdiction under the Constitution in the presence of disputed facts.
- The judgment reiterates the settled position that writ remedies are not suitable when contested factual issues are involved.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or directions were issued in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows established law on writ jurisdiction not being appropriate where disputed facts are involved.
Citations
No specific citations or reportable/non-reportable status are provided in the judgment.