The Calcutta High Court held that when there are serious disputed questions of fact regarding the alleged unauthorized disclosure of bank statements, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked; such matters must be pursued before the appropriate forum. The judgment upholds existing precedent on the limited scope of writ jurisdiction and is binding on all subordinate courts within the State.
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 |
| Bench | Single Bench (HON’BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the State of West Bengal |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law; Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition can be maintained for indemnification or initiation of criminal proceedings by a bank when disputed facts are involved regarding unauthorized disclosure of account information. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the writ petition cannot be entertained where there are serious disputed questions of fact, specifically as to whether the alleged unauthorized disclosure of account information occurred. Such matters are not suitable for adjudication under writ jurisdiction, and alternative remedies before the competent forum are available. The writ was dismissed without adjudication on merits, allowing the petitioners liberty to proceed before the appropriate forum. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioners sought directions against the respondent bank for indemnification for loss or injury due to alleged unauthorized disclosure of account statement, and to initiate criminal proceedings against a bank officer. The bank contended that it had no information regarding removal of the director to whom information was provided. Disputed questions of fact arose as to the circumstances of the disclosure. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in the State of West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, particularly regarding the approach to disputed facts in writs |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum for adjudicating disputes involving complex or seriously disputed questions of fact.
- Clarifies that when such disputed facts exist, the appropriate remedy lies with the competent civil or criminal forum rather than in writ proceedings.
- Lawyers should advise clients that allegations of unauthorised disclosure by banks require clear, undisputed facts for maintainability in writ jurisdiction.
- The Court’s direction explicitly preserves the right of parties to approach alternative forums for relief.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that the central allegations—unauthorized disclosure of account information and who was properly entitled to receive the information—were disputed by the parties.
- The Bank argued that it did not have knowledge of the change in directorship, contesting the petitioner’s factual assertions.
- The Court held that such contested factual scenarios are outside the scope of writ proceedings, which are designed largely for undisputed or self-evident facts.
- The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with liberty granted to pursue remedies in proper forums having jurisdiction over factual adjudication.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought a direction for indemnification by the bank for any loss or injury caused due to alleged unauthorized disclosure of the account statement.
- Prayed for a direction to the bank to initiate criminal proceedings against the officer responsible for the alleged unauthorized disclosure.
- Alleged that information had been improperly disclosed to an erstwhile director of the company.
Respondent (Bank)
- Contended that the information on the removal of the director was not available to the bank at the time the account statement was disclosed.
- Asserted that there was no evidence before the bank regarding the change of directorship.
Factual Background
The petitioners maintained a bank account that had remained dormant due to non-updating of KYC documents. In 2023, the bank provided account information to a director of the petitioner company. The petitioners objected, alleging that the recipient was an erstwhile director and that disclosure was unauthorized. The bank responded that it had not received any information regarding the change in directorship. The dispute thus revolved around whether the communication constituted an unauthorized disclosure.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment does not record specific interpretation or analysis of statutory provisions, but addresses the principles underlying the exercise of writ jurisdiction under constitutional law. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is not appropriate where disputed questions of fact exist and should be exercised only in cases where facts are not in serious dispute.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
The judgment was delivered by a single judge (HON’BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA) and there is no concurring or dissenting opinion recorded.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules, guidelines, or innovations were set out in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court followed existing precedent regarding the limits of writ jurisdiction in the presence of disputed facts.
Citations
No citations or parallel citations are provided in the judgment.