In the instant case, after following due process of law and the principle of national Justice i.e. show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to explain his position, opportunity was also given for personal hearing before the penal order was passed. Moreover, the penal order has been passed elaborately considering the materials on record i.e. the confessional statement and explanation of the petitioner, the investigation report and the evidence on record. The said order has been affirmed by the quasi judicial body in revision/review. ...Md. Nur Islam Vs. Securities and Exchange Commission & ors., (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 6 ....View Full Judgment

Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969
Sections 17(e)(ii)(v), 21, 24, 25
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 265C, 439
Prima facie material is sufficient for forming an opinion as to the ground for proceeding against the accused— In the case of The State Vs. Khondker Md. Moniruzzaman reported in 17 BLD (AD) 54 it has been held that when prima facie, there is no material on record to show that the accused was in any way connected with the alleged offence, it is to be held that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and he should be discharged. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the materials on record and the documents in the case and upon hearing the parties found that there are sufficient material to proceed against the accused under section 17(e)(ii)(v) of the Security & Exchange Ordinance, 1969 and accordingly framed charges instead of discharging the accused. But at the trial, before holding the petitioner guilty and convicted, the accused could prove that the offence was committed without her knowledge or that she exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. Impugned order is not sustainable in law and accordingly set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge shall proceed against the accused in accordance with law. .....Securities and Exchange Commission =VS= Runa N. Alam, (Criminal), 2025(1) [18 LM (AD) 605] ....View Full Judgment

Securities & Exchange Ordinance, 1969
Section 20A r/w
The Securities and Exchange Commission (Mutual Fund) Rules, 2001
Rule 50(Kha)
Section 20A of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969 before adding the non-obstante clause by amendment shall prevail over Rule 50(Kha) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (Mutual Fund) Rules, 2001 on the analogy that the power given in the Ordinance shall prevail over the subordinate legislation, that is, the Securities and Exchange Commission (Mutual Fund) Rules, 2001 when there is a conflict in between the power conferred under the Ordinance and the subordinate legislation. The provisions of the Ordinance shall prevail over the subordinate legislation. .....Chairman, SEC =VS= Md Ali Zaman, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 184] ....View Full Judgment

Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1989
Section 21— Power of the Commission to order enquiry—
Section 21 empowers the Commission to cause enquiry by order in writing. When the proceedings were started on the basis of such an enquiry and the High Court Division after hearing both the parties vacated the interim order of stay granted earlier, the apex court declined to interfere with the said interlocutory order in view of the matter involving the merit of the case pending before the High Court Division. Wonderland Toys Ltd. Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others 12 MLR (2007) (AD) 19.

On consideration of the materials on record, it appears to us that the impugned order dated o8. 12. 2011 can not be said to be unlawful merely because it is without elaborate reasoning and non-speaking one. The impugned order appears to be otherwise sustainable. ...Md. Nur Islam Vs. Securities and Exchange Commission & ors., (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 6 ....View Full Judgment

Securities and Exchange Ordinance [XVII of 1969]
Section 26 read with
Securities and Exchange Commission (Stock Dealer, Stock Broker and Authorized Representative) Rules, 2000
Rule 12
It is now well recognized that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for en-forcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. The High Court Division held that in the instant case the petitioner did not make any attempt to file a revision or review and to exercise this right prior to filing the writ petition. It is now well recognized that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. Instead of doing so, petitioner filed the writ petition within the time limits / limitation periods prescribed for revision and review, thereby marking the instant writ petition unmaintainable. Shamim Ahmed -Vs.- Chairman, Bangladesh Security and Exchange Commission & others(Spl.Original) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 390 ....View Full Judgment