Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD)
Bank Companies/ Banking Companies Act [XIV of 1991] (ব্যাংক-কোম্পানী আইন) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Sections 5gaga, 27kaka (2) & (4) |
Bank Companies Act, 1991
|
Bangladesh Bank =VS= Homeland Footwear Limited | 15 LM (AD) 608 |
Section 10g |
Section—10g/ill with Article—56 of P.O. 127 of 1972, Clause-4 of the
Non-Banking Financial Order, 1989
|
Md. SaiduL Islam Chowdhury Vs. The State & others | 3 BLT (AD) 144 |
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. |
Md. Safiul Alam alias Masudul Alam Chowdhury Vs Bangladesh Bank and others | 19 BLD (AD) 249 |
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. |
Md. Saiful Alam alias Masudul Alam Chowdhury Vs Bangladesh Bank and others | 19 BLD (AD) 249 |
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. |
Mr. A.S.F. Rahman and others Vs Bangladesh Bank and others | 20 BLD (AD) 32 |
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. |
Abdullah Ahsan Vs Bangladesh Bank and others | 20 BLD (AD) 260 |
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. | 8 BLT (AD) 13 |
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 |
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 |
Sonali Bank =VS= Major Monjur Quader (Rtd.) | 6 LM (AD) 8 |
Section 27(ka) |
Credit Information Bureau (CIB) matter– Realizing and exempting the
interest of loan money is a policy decision of the Board of Directors of
the concerned bank which is not amenable in the writ of mandamus– Already
found that the writ petitioner is a defaulter borrower. The respondent Bank
filed 3(three) Artha Rin suits against him which are pending. In such a
circumstances, the writ respondent No.5-Bank sent the name of the borrower
respondent No. 1 to the leave petitioner No.2 to circulate the same in the
CIB database which is the legal requirement of routine work of the writ
respondent Bank. In publishing / circulating the name of the writ
petitioner, the writ respondents did not violate any law. The writ
petitioner-respondent herein was not able to make out any specific legal
infringement of his right, rather, made out points disclosing disputed
question of facts. Appellate Division is, therefore, of the view that in
the given facts and circumstances of the case, there is no cogent reason to
file the writ of mandamus as an aggrieved person. Nevertheless the High
Court Division without considering the legal aspects of the case in its
true perspective issued the Rule directing the writ respondent No.5-Bank to
realize the principal loan money by 60(sixty) installments exempting
interest which cannot be done in a writ of mandamus.
|
Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= M.N.H. Bulu | 11 LM (AD) 70 |
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 |
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 |
Sonali Bank Limited=VS=Roseburg Industries Limited | 9 LM (AD) 173 |
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. |
Abdur Rahim Chowdhury Vs Bangladesh Bank and others | 20 BLD (AD) 170 |
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. |
Abdur Rahim Chowdhury Vs Bangladesh Bank and others | 20 BLD (AD) 170 |
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 (AD) 223 |
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. | 9 BLT (AD) 230 |
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 (AD) 223 |
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. |
BRAC v. Professor Mozaffar Ahmed and others | 22 BLD (AD) 41 |
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 vs. Professor Mozaffar Ahmed and others | 22 BLD (AD) 41 |
Section 91 |
Election of director— Nomination of Candidate as contemplated in Article
114 of the Articles of Association of IFICB—
|
A.S.F. Rahman & another Vs. A.M. Agha Yousuf & others | 5 MLR (AD) 264 |
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 |
Section 109/111 |
Section—109/111 with Article—56 of P.O. 127 of 1972,
|
Md. Saidul Islam Chowdhury Vs. The State & Anr. | 3 BLT (AD) 144 |
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 |
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 (AD) 223 |