Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Bank Companies/ Banking Companies Act [XIV of 1991] (ব্যাংক-কোম্পানী আইন)
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 5(Ga Ga)

Since SABTNCO and Dutch Bangla Bank Ltd have already can­celled the bank guarantee executed by the writ petitioners-respondents-applicants and in view of the decision of Sonali Bank vide letter dated 22nd March, 2006 to withdraw Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 479-480 of 2005 the application for dismissing the Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 479-480 of 2005 is allowed.
Sonali Bank vs Md Mostafa Kamal 13 BLC (AD) 118. ....View Full Judgment

Section 10g

Section—10g/ill with Article—56 of P.O. 127 of 1972, Clause-4 of the Non-Banking Financial Order, 1989
The company advanced a huge to the accused petitioner with 19 other directors of the Bangladesh Commerce and Investment Ltd. (BCI Ltd.) and their relations in violation of the laws. Warrant of arrest being issued, the petitioner was arrested on 1.8.92. He was granted an ad interim bail on 22.2.93 on condition of his depositing the entire loan money & filing certificate from the Bangladesh Bank. On the expiry of extended period on 29.6.93. the accused petitioner, having not surrendered in the Court of M. M. is a fugitive from law and justice and he is not entitled to bail. Surrender in the Court of C. M. during the pendency of the bail. This will not prejudge what view the other courts will take in respect of future bail application filed by him. [Paras-4 & 5]
Md. SaiduL Islam Chowdhury Vs. The State & others 3 BLT (AD)-144 ....View Full Judgment

Section 17

The High Court division will only decide the legality of the notice under section 17 of the Act on perusal of the notice only and on no other supporting or opposing materials. Md. Safiul Alam alias Masudul Alam Chowdhury Vs Bangladesh Bank and others, 19 BLD (AD) 249. ....View Full Judgment

Section 17

On a close reading of section 17 of the Act, as amended up-to-date it appears that since the said section is concerned with the subject matter of vacancy of the office of directors which is an additional occasion for vacancy other than those contained in the Companies Act, 1994 and since the entire scheme of the said Act is to bestow upon the Bangladesh Bank a strong regulatory power over the functioning and business of bank companies, it is enough if the offending director is intimated in a notice under section 17 of the Act that he has a personal liability to repay a loan of the kind described in section 17 and that on the date of notice the loan remains unliquidated upon expiry of the stipulated.. date of repayment of either the whole loan or an installment thereof. It is not necessary to describe in the notice the nature and number of document or documents on the basis of which the offending director is claimed by the lender Bank to be personally responsible for repayment of a loan or an installment. But if the offending debtor denies his personal liability to repay the loan in his written representation the Bangladesh Bank may send for the incriminating materials and confront the offending director with the same. It is before respondent No. 1 that the offending director will place all his grievances against the show cause notice and it is respondent No. I who will determine the relevance, genuineness, connection between the lender Bank’s documents and the loans in question and the liability or otherwise of the offending director. Md. Saiful Alam alias Masudul Alam Chowdhury Vs Bangladesh Bank and others, 19 BLD (AD) 249. ....View Full Judgment

Section 17

In issuing the notices under section 17 of the Act the lender Bank acted neither as a substantive authority nor as a Court nor as a tribunal. It acted purely in an executive capacity under an authority granted by a statute if the show cause notice is issued by an unauthorised or if the allegations in the show cause notice on the face of it do not attract the mischief of section 17, a notice under section 17 can certainly be challenged in the writ jurisdiction and declared to have been issued without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect. Mr. A.S.F. Rahman and others Vs Bangladesh Bank and others, 20 BLD (AD) 32. ....View Full Judgment

Section 17

The High Court Division simply does not have the jurisdiction to decide the validity of a notice under section 17 of the Act upon adjudication of documents both sides. The offending director may have a very good case to show that he has no personal liability to the lender Bank at all. But it is not for the High Court Division to determine or even hint at the offending director’s personal liability or otherwise, except on admission, when the only us before it is whether the notice under section 17 of the Act is legal or not. Abdullah Ahsan Vs Bangladesh Bank and others, 20 BLD (AD) 260. ....View Full Judgment

Section 17

We are of the opinion that since the said section if concerned with the subject matter of vacancy of the office of directors which is an additional occasion for vacancy other than those contained in the Companies Act. 1994 and since the entire scheme of the said Act is to bestow upon the Bangladesh Bank a strong regulatory power over the functioning and business of bank companies, it is enough if the offending director is intimated in a notice under section 17 of the said Act that he has a personal liability to repay a loan of the kind described in section 17 and that on the date of notice the loan remains liquidated upon expiry of the stipulated date of repayment of either the whole loan or an installment thereof. It is not necessary to describe in the notice the nature and number of document on the basis of which the offending director is claimed by the lender Bank to be personally responsible for repayment of a loan or an installment. But if offending director denies his personal liability to repay the loan in his written representation the Bangladesh Bank may send for the incriminating materials and confront the offending director with the same.
Masudul Alam Chowdhury Vs. Bangladeshn Bank & Ors 8BLT(AD)-13 ....View Full Judgment

Section 17

Held: In the case of Md. Saiful Alam alias Masudul Alam Chowdhury vs. Bangladesh Bank and others, C.P. 529 of 1999 we have held that it is the Bangladesh Bank which is authorized under the Act to determine the relevance, genuineness; connection between the lender Bank’s documents and the loans in question and the liability or ‘non liability of the offending director and that the High Court Division is not, the forum for adjudication upon the documents of the offending director and the lender Bank.
Aminul Haque Chowdhury Vs. Bangladesh Bank & Anr. 10 BLT (AD)-36 ....View Full Judgment

Section 27Ka

The respondent transferred all his shares in favour of Reza Quadir on 25-7-1996 as is evident by exhibit-D and the statutory return to that effect was duly filed with the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies on 18-12-1996. The amended section 27Ka of Banking Companies Act came into force when the respondent was neither a share-holder of the company nor a Member of the Board of Directors of the borrower company. His shares have already been validly transferred prior to that date and as such he does not come within the definition of defaulter-borrower by virtue of the personal guarantee. In the light of the findings, we do not find substance in this appeal. Accordingly. this appeal is dismissed. ...Sonali Bank =VS= Major Monjur Quader (Rtd.), (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 8] ....View Full Judgment

Section 31(1)

The Cabinet Committtee further decided in the same meeting that there shall be no further extension of time limit to complete formalities by the writ petitioner. The Bangladesh Bank accordingly, informed that the proposed Sundarban Bank International Ltd. did not reach the stage at any time for applying for licence to com­mence banking business. This letter was either addressed to the writ petitioner nor a copy of the same was endorsed to him and it is also not an order rather it was a reply made in compliance with the query made by the Ministry of Finance by Annexure-O to the writ petition. Moreover, the impugned Annexure-Q being a reply by the Bangladesh Bank in reply to query made by the Ministry of Finance and uncommunicated to the writ petitioner in the process of reaching decision in the matter, it did not create any legal right in favour of the writ petitioner.
Bangladesh Bank vs M Habibullah Bahar 12 BLC (AD) 87. ....View Full Judgment

Section 45

The provisions of the Bank Companies Act 1991 which gave it the regulatory power. Under section 45 of the Bank Companies Act 1991 the Bangladesh Bank is empowered to give any direction upon any bank or financial institutions for public interest for the development of banking practice and for proper management of a bank. ...Sonali Bank Limited=VS=Roseburg Industries Limited, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 173] ....View Full Judgment

Section 46(2)

In view of the existence of the report and recommendation it cannot be said that there was no material before the respondent No.1 to form the opinion concerning the appellant or that the said opinion was merely fanciful. So the requirement of formation of an opinion by the Bangladesh Bank has been made before directing a Director, Chairman or Chief Executive of a banking company to refrain from performing functions of his office during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings against him for his removal from office under section 46 of the Act. Such opinion must be formed on the basis of relevant materials on record and not fancifully without any such material nor on the basis of irrelevant materials. Abdur Rahim Chowdhury Vs Bangladesh Bank and others, 20 BLD (AD) 170. ....View Full Judgment

Section 46 and 47

Whether there was sufficient good reason to form an opinion cannot be looked into by the Court as that would be substituting the opinion of the Bangladesh Bank. The Court cannot accept the contention that the Bangladesh Bank could not have arrived at an opinion or satisfaction to suspend the petitioner on a single transaction. Abdur Rahim Chowdhury Vs Bangladesh Bank and others, 20 BLD (AD) 170. ....View Full Judgment

Section 46(1)

It requires that the person against whom a penal order is to be made shall be given a reasonable opportunity for offering his explanation against the proposed order. The fairness or fair play in action also demands it.
Kamal Uddin Ahmed-Vs.-The Governor, Bangladesh Bank & ors. 2 ALR (2013)(AD) 223 ....View Full Judgment

Section 46

The facts and circumstances prima facie indicate that the proceeding that has been initiated is only to circumvent the order passed by this Division in civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 534 of 1999 of which Bangladesh Bank was fully aware. When Bangladesh Bank petitioner is fully aware of this Division’s order or had knowledge of the order they are bound to honour the same. Reliance is placed on the principle of law enunciated by the House of Lords in the case of Attorney General Vs. Times Newspapers Ltd. and another reporter in (1991)2 All England law Reports Page- 398 wherein it has been held that a person who is aware of an order of the Court is bound to obey the same even though he was not a party to that when it affects the result of the earlier order. Here in the present case earlier order of this Division was to maintain status quo in respect of composition of the Board of Directors of the Bank and a copy of that order was sent to Bangladesh Bank by UCBL and in such a situation the Bangladesh Bank is bound to honour the order passed by this Division.
Bangladesh Bank & Ors. Vs. Zafor Ahmed Chowdhury&Anr. 9BLT (AD)-230 ....View Full Judgment

Section 48

In the instant case, the appellants were removed under section 48 of the Act from Directorship of the Bank for suppression of material facts which affected the interest of the share-holders of the Bank. The principle of natural justice was duly complied with by reason of the fact that in the show cause notices the allegations against them were duly brought to their notice enabling them to furnish their explanation thereto. Therefore the grievances of the appellants for violation of natural justice and fairplay of action have no substances.
Kamal Uddin Ahmed-Vs.-The Governor, Bangladesh Bank & ors. 2 ALR (2013)(AD) 223 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 64 and 65

A relief to which one is not entitled to directly cannot be given to that person indirectly. The winding up of a bank can only be done as provided under sections 64 and 65 of the Bank Company Act 1991 and cannot be wound up at the instance of the writ petitioner in an indirect manner. (Per Mahmudul Amin Choudhury, CJ) BRAC v. Professor Mozaffar Ahmed and others, 22 BLD (AD) 41. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 64 and 65

A relief to which one is not entitled to directly cannot be given to that person indirectly. The winding up of a bank can only be done as provided under sections 64 and 65 of the Bank Company Act 1991 and cannot be wound up at the instance of the writ petitioner in an indirect manner. (Per Mahmudul Amin Choudhury, CJ)
BRAC v. Professor Mozaffar Ahmed and others, 22 BLD(AD)41 ....View Full Judgment

Section 91

Election of director— Nomination of Candidate as contemplated in Article 114 of the Articles of Association of IFICB—
A seven days prior notice before the Annual General Meeting as to the candidature of a share-holder for election as director either in his own handwriting or of his agent with his endorsement shall have to be left is the office of the Company otherwise there will be no valid nomination consequently leading to the cancellation of the election of such a candidate as director.
A.S.F. Rahman & another Vs. A.M. Agha Yousuf & others- 5 MLR (2000) (AD) 264. ....View Full Judgment

Section 103

No injunction can be granted against operation of bank account and withdrawal of the money in deposit as per terms of contract. The account being opened with a specific condition setting the act of operation of payment, the Bank is bound to comply with the condition on which it has accepted the deposit.
Ziauddin Ahmed and others vs Arab Bangladesh Bank and others 53 DLR (AD) 107. ....View Full Judgment

Section 109/111

Section—109/111 with Article—56 of P.O. 127 of 1972,
Clause-4 of the Non-Banking Financial Order, 1989
The company advanced a huge to the accused petitioner with 19 other directors of the Bangladesh Commerce and Investment Ltd. (BCI Ltd.) and their relations in violation of the laws. Warrant of arrest being issued, the petitioner was arrested on 1.8.92. He was granted an ad interim bail on 22.2.93 on condition of his depositing the entire loan money & filing certificate from the Bangladesh Bank. On the expiry of extended period on 29.6.93, the accused petitioner, having not surrendered in the Court of M. M. is a fugitive from law and justice and he is not entitled to bail. Surrender in the Court of C. M. during the pendency of the bail. This will not prejudge what view the other courts will take in respect of future bail application filed by him.
Md. Saidul Islam Chowdhury Vs. The State & Anr. 3BLT (AD)-144. ....View Full Judgment

Section 110

Section 110 of Ranking Companies Act, 1991 also provides that a Manager, Officer and other functionaries of the Banking Company are deemed to be public servants under section 21 of the Penal Code and hence the appellant and the respondent are public servants and the case has been rightly instituted in the Court of Special Judge against the respondent.
International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd vs Abdul Quayam and another 4 BLC (AD) 255. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 250, 322 and 328

When a winding up order has been made or a provisional liquidator has been appointed, no suit or other legal proceedings can proceed or commence except by leave of the Court. The policy underlying this provision is to protect the assets for equitable distribution among those entitled, and to prevent the administration being embarrassed by a general scramble of creditors. When a winding up order of a company has been made, the combined effect of sections 250,322 and 328 of the Act is that such order operates automatically as a stay of all actions, executions, distresses etc. against the company subject to the discretion of the Court to allow actions to proceed notwithstanding the winding up.
Kamal Uddin Ahmed-Vs.-The Governor, Bangladesh Bank & ors. 2 ALR (2013)(AD) 223 ....View Full Judgment