Item No.6 23.07.2026 Court. No. 11 GB CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE JURISDICTION MAT 61 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Utpal Kumar Ray VS The Ombudsman (Banking) & Anr. Mr. Utpal Kumar Ray … Appellant (in-person). Mr. Abhishek Sarkar … for the Respondent No.2. 1. Liberty to cure the defect. 2. Despite service none appears for the respondent no.1. 3. As the appellant appears in-person, the stamp reporter will assist the appellant to indicate how the valuation is to be put in. 4. The issue before this Court is not the dispute with regard to the entitlement of the appellant in the share of the money of the deceased. 5. The only issue for consideration by us is whether the Ombudsman ought to have entertained the complaint of the appellant that was filed against the State Bank of India, with regard to the steps taken for distribution of the money of the deceased while seeking to implement and/or follow and/or comply with the direction of the competent court in the succession certificate that was granted by order dated 2 March 24, 2025, passed in Misc. Succession Case - 06 of 2024. 6. The order is quoted below:- “That the instant Succession Case be and the same is allowed ex parte without cast. Let a Succession Certificate be issued in the name of each of the petitioners in respect of the scheduled mentioned securities in Prescribed Form as per provision of 374/377 of the Act subject to payment of stamp papers over which the Certificate is to be written which will be assessed by the Sheristadar of the Court with direction upon the petitioners to distribute the same amongst themselves as per their entitlement. The instant Case is thus disposed of.” 7. The appellant claims to be the nephew of the deceased and the petitioner no.8 in the succession application. 8. The appellant appears in-person and submits that, by the succession certificate the petitioners were directed to distribute the money amongst themselves but, the bank exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing cheques individually in the name of the petitioners. When the appellant deposited his cheque, the same was not cleared and the bank did not inform him why such clearance could not be made. Accordingly, the appellant being aggrieved by the action of the bank, filed a complaint before the Ombudsman, which was dismissed upon holding that the said complaint was not maintainable. 9. According to the appellant, the complaint was with regard to the deficiency of service by the bank and/or overt act, 3 contrary to the order of the competent court granting the succession certificate. The bank was not directed to issue multiple cheques to the heirs at different times upon taking back some of the prior issued cheques. The subsequent cheques were also encashed by some of the heirs. 10. Mr. Sarkar submits that the Ombudsman had no authority to decide the issue as the appellant’s claim and/or the claim of the other legal heirs as that would be directly linked to their shares in the estate of the deceased. The appellant is a class-2 heir and as per the legal advice of the learned advocate the bank had issued the cheques for equal amount to the persons named in the succession certificate. When the bank was informed that all the persons would not get equal share, the others returned the cheques. The bank reissued cheques and some of them have encashed those. 11. However, referring to the aforementioned conduct of the bank, the appellant has alleged deficiency of service. This issue is to be decided by the Ombudsman, that is, whether the bank acted in accordance with law or beyond its jurisdiction by issuing cheques individually to the heirs of the deceased. Such issue will be decided by the Ombudsman. We allow the appeal by setting aside the decision of the Ombudsman and the order of the learned trial Judge is also modified to the above extent. 12. We agree with the learned Single Judge to the extent that the shares of the parties cannot be decided by the writ proceeding and if the appellant had any grievance with regard to the quantum of money to which he was entitled, 4 from the estate of the deceased, the appellant’s remedy was before the civil court. However, the allegation against the respondent no.2/bank of having acted contrary to the direction in the succession certificate and beyond its jurisdiction, shall be decided by the Ombudsman, and not the share of the appellant. The appellant will file a fresh complaint to the Ombudsman, which shall be decided within six weeks from date of communication of this order. The Ombudsman will hear the appellant and the bank authorities. All issues are left open as regards the question involved. 13. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 14. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Smita Das De, J.)