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 neither 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.

Banking Companies Ordinance—winding up order made—Transfer of a pending case from civil Court to the Company Judge is not a matter of course—A matter pending before the High Court Division or Appellate Division on appeal cannot be transferred to the Company Judge. Kanak Chandra Das and others Vs. Basiruddin Khan and another; 1 BLD (AD) 421.

Claim for recovery of money by a Banking Company whether can be decreed in the absence of any evidence as to actual payment the amount—In view of the fact title deeds were deposited with the bank along with all other usual documents, executed by the predecessor of defendant the Company and gu1ar entries in the ledger and clean cash of the Bank in respect of the loan the claim is established—There is also admission x the Managing Director of defendant the company as to the liability to the Bank- Moreover there is presumption under the Neon able Instruments Act, Bankers Books of Evidence Act and Banking Companies Ordinance—Negotiable Instruments Act (XXV of ‘s I) S. 11 8—Bankers Book of Evidence Act XVIII of )891)S.4. Planters (Bangladesh) Ltd. Vs. Mahalaxmi Bank Limited and others; 5 BLD (AD) 150.

Banking Companies Ordinance—Appeal—No appeal lies against an order not covered by section 72(1X2) of the Ordain e—Order under section 66(9) upon an application under section 66(1) not being covered by section 72(l)(2) is not appeal able— order passed on an application under non 66(1) cannot be held to be an order pass on an application under section 196(1) ii of Companies Act—Companies Act (VII 4i 1913) Ss. 196 and 202. Bangladesh Bank Vs. Debendra Nath Dutta; 1 BLD (AD) 431.

Bank's property-Articles of Association-Scheme of Arrangement-Director -in-charge's power-Whether lease-deeds executed two weeks after expiration of the Scheme of Arrangement are ultra vires the power of the Director-in-charge.
NL Sinha, Director-in-charge, acted under the Scheme of arrangement from which he derived his power and authority. Articles of Association were subject to the Scheme of Arrangement which required him to seek prior approval of the Board of Directors for any transfer of the Bank's property and this power and authority did not extend beyond the period of the Scheme of Arrangement. The lease-deeds were executed two weeks after the expiration of the terms of the Scheme of Arrangement and so ultra vires his power. The Bank is, therefore, not bound by the transfer. Harun Moten vs Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd 41 DLR (AD) 8.

Special procedure for computing the period of limitation for a suit filed by a Banking Company facing liquidation.
It appears, under the general law of limitation, namely Article 95 of the Limitation Act, the suit was filed within the period of limitation of 3 years not only from the date of knowledge as claimed but also from the date of the decree. But the application for addition of party was filed on March 3, 1966, but for any special law of limitation the application was barred. The suit is, however, governed by a special provision as to limitation, namely, section 73 of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 which came into force from July 1962. This section provides for a special procedure for computing the period of limitation for a suit on an application filed by a Banking Company facing liquidation.
Harun Moten vs Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd and ors 41 DLR (AD) 8.
Whether right to sue which was extinguished long before the new change of law subsequently can revive that right that was destroyed.
In pursuance of this provision of law the trial Court excluded the period from 25-8-1959 when the petition for winding up the bank was presented, to 6-3-1966, when the application for addition of party to the suit was made in computing the period of limitation. Mr Chowdhury has expressed doubt whether section 73 is applicable to an application for impleading a party. But the language of section 73 is wide enough to include any application by a Banking Company under liquidation. Main contention is that the plaintiffs right to sue defendant No. 3 was barred by the ordinary law and as such this right was extinguished before defendant No. 3 was impleaded. This right which was extinguished could not be revived by subsequent change of law providing for a longer period of limitation. In the instant case section 73 of the Banking Companies Ordinance as well as the Ordinance itself came into force in July;. 1962 when the plaintiffs right to sue under the ordinary law was still alive and was not extinguished. There is, therefore, no question of revival of a right destroyed.
Harun Moten vs Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd 41 DLR (AD) 8.
-Legislative intent behind the special enactment to enable a Banking Company in liquidation to file a suit by overcoming the bar of limitation.
Legislative intent behind this special enactment appears to enable a Banking Company in liquidation to file a suit or make an application to protect its interest by overcoming any bar of limitation under the ordinary law and for that purpose this law excluded the period from the presentation of an application for the winding up to the institution of the suit in computing the period of limitation. This provision being a special provision of law must take effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law. If a banking company can take benefit of this provision for filing a suit it is quite understandable that this benefit will be available to make an application for addition of parties to the suit. We, therefore, find that the question of limitation has been correctly decided in this case by the High Court Division.
Harun Moten vs Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd 41 DLR (AD) 8.