Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962
[LVII of 1962]
Section 2-
In the present case concerning adjustment of loan by share certificates, the provisions of Banking Companies Ordinance shall be read construed in addition to sec 171 of the Contract Act. From the provision of the Sale of Goods Act it appears that the shares of a company are also goods and as such moveable property. Money is species of goods over which lien may be exercised. Where a banker has advanced money to another, he has a lien on all securities which come within his hand for the amount of his general balance unless there is an express contract to the contrary.
Sonali Bank vs Bengal Liner Ltd 42 DLR 487.
Sections 2 and 41-
Bangladesh Bank has not been invested with any power for removal of a Director of a Banking Company.
Khondker Mahtabuddin Ahmed vs Bangladesh Bank and others. 47 DLR 589.
Sections 2, 60-62-
Auction sale of property of company-The Company is in liquidation long afterwards-Question of setting aside the saleProvisions of the Banking Companies Ordinance when read with those of the Companies Act and the Public Demands Recovery Act, it appears that the provisions of the Banking Companies Act shall be effective in addition to and not in derogation to the Companies Act or any other law for the time being in force excepting the provisions which are specifically made in the Ordinance. In view of the fact that the law under which the auction sale took place has made provisions for the aggrieved person to seek the relief of setting aside the auction and the plaintiff did not avail of the forum for appropriate remedy and the auction is still subsisting in the eye of law, the same cannot be set aside now in the present proceeding under the Banking Companies Ordinance.
Official Liquidator vs Jahura Khatun 43 DLR 558.
Section 24-
Deposit of share certificate to adjust loan-A company is debarred from giving loan to its shareholder or director on the security of share certificates sold to him. This section does not, however, in any manner prohibit him to deposit his share certificates with. an authority to sell it to others in order to adjust the loan which was taken by him earlier.
Sonali Bank vs Bengal Liner Ltd 42 DLR 487.
Section 41-
A company's Cash Credit Account with a bank-Power of Bangladesh Bank to give directions-The direction contemplated in the above section can be of general character touching policy guidelines and not otherwise. Direction given in the instant case does not mention any public interest, it rather relates to the conduct of a bank with respect to a particular loanee only to secure the interest of a respondent. Such direction, particularly when the respondent's claim is sub-judice before a civil Court, was not proper, the same being beyond the purview of the section.
Delta Jute Mills Ltd vs Sonali Bank 43 DLR 483,
Sections 60 and 61-
The Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 made special provisions for banking companies when they are in liquidation and empowered the High Court Division exclusive jurisdiction to decide any claim by or against a banking company. Though this Ordinance is in addition and not in derogation of the Companies Act or any other law for the time being in force, section 60 of the Banking Companies Ordinance by its non obstante clause made provision to prevail over the Companies Act, Civil Procedure Code or any other law for the time being in force.
Bazlul Ghant vs Pioneer Bank Ltd Comilla 42 DLR 480.
Section 73-
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.