Section 3
|
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947
Section 3: and
General Clauses Act
Section 16:
According to Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, where, by any Act of
Parliament or Regulation, a power to make any appointment is conferred,
then, unless a different intention appears, the authority having for the
time being power to make the appointment shall also have power to suspend
or dismiss any person appointed whether by itself or any other authority in
exercise of that power. As the suspension of licence is not there in
Section 3 of the Act of 1947, in our opinion, the provisions of Section 16
of the General Clauses Act can definitely be invoked in order to give a
complete and harmonious interpretation of Section 3 of the Act of 1947.
What we are driving at boils down to this: the authority making any
appointment has the power to suspend the licence of any person appointed.
...First Money Changers Ltd Vs. Bangladesh Bank & others, (Civil), 2 SCOB
[2015] HCD 95
....View Full Judgment
|
First Money Changers Ltd Vs. Bangladesh Bank & others |
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 95 |
Section 3
|
Suspension of licence of money exchange—
The Principal, Bangladesh Bank has always power to take action against its
agent for misdemeanour of criminal nature.
Mustafa Zamil Ahmed Vs. Governor of Bangladesh Bank and others. 5 MLR
(2000) (AD) 346.
|
Mustafa Zamil Ahmed Vs. Governor of Bangladesh Bank and others. |
5 MLR (AD) 346 |
Section 3(2)(iii)
|
The Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102 r/w
The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947
Section 3(2)(iii)
Principle of natural justice– We are of the view that the High Court
Division has correctly decided that in the facts and circumstances of this
case the principle of justice has not been violated. Clearly, the
petitioner did not feel sufficiently aggrieved by the lack of opportunity
given him by way of show cause notice or opportunity of being heard. He did
not immediately rush to the High Court Division challenging the violation
of the principle of natural justice. On the contrary, he took the decision
to make himself be heard by the authority concerned by making
representations and by supplying other supporting evidence. .....Amzad
Hussain =VS= Bangladesh Bank, [4 LM (AD) 33]
....View Full Judgment
|
Amzad Hussain =VS= Bangladesh Bank |
4 LM (AD) 33 |
Section 4(2) and 5(1)
|
Contract made in contravention of these provisions is not viod or contrary
to section 23 of the Contract Act—
The scheme of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is not to forbid the
making of a contract but merely to insist that the contract shall be
performed in a particular manner, namely, by taking the necessary
permission of the competent authority which may be regularised by ex-post
facto permission under section 21. Therefore it cannot be said that a
contract done in violation of any of the provisions of Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act is exfacie void or void abinitio or such a contract comes
within the mischief section 23 of the Contract Act.
Manwar Hussain Vs. Wait Mohammad. (1965) 17 DLR (SC) 369.
|
Manwar Hussain Vs. Wait Mohammad. (1965) |
17 DLR (SC) 369 |
Section-18
|
The trial court concluded its finding holding that admittedly the defendant
Inge Flatz being a foreigner the agreement was required to be executed with
prior permission of Bangladesh Bank, but the plaintiff did not obtain
permission and thus, the agreement was hit by section 18 of the Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act. .....RAJUK =VS=Manzur Ahmed & Others, (Civil),
2016-[1 LM (AD) 1]
....View Full Judgment
|
RAJUK =VS=Manzur Ahmed & Others |
1 LM (AD) 1 |
Section 23
|
Proceedings shall have to be initiated by complaint presented by person
duly authorized by the Government or the Bangladesh Bank.
Proceedings against contraventions of any of the provision of the Act,
shall have to be initiated on presentation of complaint by a person duly
authorized by the Government or the Bangladesh Bank. In the instant case
the police lodged the F.I.R and cognizance was taken on the charge sheet
submitted by the police. The Appellate Division held the High Court
Division was perfectly justified in quashing the proceedings which were
abuse of the process of the court.
The State Vs. Mirza Abbas 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 141.
|
The State Vs. Mirza Abbas |
15 MLR (AD) 141 |
Section 23
|
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947
Section 23 r/w
Emergency Power Rules, 2007
Rule 194 T (1) and 19 T (5)
The Appellate Division observed that for contravention of any of the
provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 proceedings are to
be initiated on presentation of complainant by a person duly authorized
either by the Government or by the Bangladesh Bank. The F.I.R. on the basis
of which the case was started and the court took cognizance of the case was
filed by a police officer who was not at all authorized either by the
Government or by the Bangladesh Bank to lodge that F.I.R. and in the
circumstances the whole proceeding was illegal, hence it is dismissed.
.....The State =VS= Ahmed Akbar, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 548]
....View Full Judgment
|
The State =VS= Ahmed Akbar |
1 LM (AD) 548 |
Section 27 and Rule 3(2)
|
Jurisdiction of State Bank—
Conferment of power under rule 3(2) framed under section 27 of the Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act, to the State Bank to fix the date within which to
bring back the sale proceeds of the exported goods into Pakistan is not a
delegation of legislative power and as such the State Bank acted illegally
in fixing the period of repatriation of the sale proceeds.
Kalipada Saha Vs. The State (1959) 11 DLR (SC) 239.
|
Kalipada Saha Vs. The State (1959) |
11 DLR (SC) 239 |