Item 29 20.07.2026 Court. No. 11 Cp Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri MAT 47 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 Sukumar Ghosh Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sandip Mandal Mr. Amit Saha …for the appellant. Ms. Supriya Singh Mr. Samar Rakshit …..for the State. Mr. Abhishek Sarkar Ms. D. Ghosh ….for the respondent no.2. Dr. Navin Barik Ms. E. Acharya …..for the respondent nos. 3 to 8. 1. The appeal arises out of an order dated March 23, 2026, passed in WPA 664 of 2025. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge held that the appellant could not have approached the bank in his individual capacity and asked the bank to furnish the details of the transactions of the company in which the appellant is one of the directors. 2. It is the appellant’s case that, he was wrongly ousted from directorship. His directorship has been protected in a 2 proceeding initiated by the appellant before the National Company Law Tribunal. 3. His Lordship was of the view that, the records did not demonstrate that the appellant was either an authorized signatory of the company or was validly authorized by the board of directors to seek information with regard to the financial transactions of the company. 4. A company is a separate juristic person and as such, the documents relating to the transactions of the company could have been procured by a director only in his official capacity, upon being authorized to do so by the Board. 5. The appellant contends that the said documents are necessary in order to prove defalcation, mismanagement and the malpractices adopted by the other directors, who were actually siphoning off the funds of the company. 6. In our view, the remedy of the appellant lies before the appropriate forum and the appellant can always approach such forum in accordance with law. The prayer upon the bank to supply the information with regard to the company’s bank account cannot be granted in a writ proceeding. 3 7. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application being CAN 2 of 2026, are disposed of, upon upholding the order impugned. 8. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Smita Das De, J.)