BANGLADESH ABANDONED PROPERTY [CONTROL, MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL] ORDER, 1972 AND BANGLADESH INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES (NATIONALISATION) ORDER, 1972

Interpretation of Statute (Minority View)

(a) Whether A.P.O. No. I of 1972 stood repealed by necessary implication doubt about the validity of A.P.O. No. I of 1972. With the coming into effect of P.O. No. 16 of 1972 theory of repeal by necessary implication was rejected A.P.O. No. I of 1972 is found to be a continuing law.

Shahabuddin Ahmed, C.J. holding the minority view.

Bangladesh Vs. M/S. Dhaka Steel Works Ltd. & Ors. 1BLT (AD)-1

Interpretation of Statute Articles 4(a) and 10(1)(d) of P.O. No. 27 of 1972

(b) All industrial enterprises placed under a corporation by or by an order under Clause (1) of Article 10 and all sharers and proprietary and other interests not vested in the government by or under any law for the time being force shall by virtue of this article and without any further processing or formality stand vested in or allotted to the government free of any trust, mortgage charge, lien, interest or other encumbrance whatsoever.

Bangladesh Vs. M/S. Dhaka Steel Works Ltd. & Ors. JBLT (AD)-1

Interpretation of two laws Section-2 of P.O. No. 16 of 72.—Article 10(1) of P.O. No. 27 of 1972

(c) High Court Division view that a property which is not an abandoned one cannot be placed under the corporation is an erroneous one-placement of the Dhaka Steel Works Ltd. and others under P.O. No. 2 of 1972 is valid.

Bangladesh Vs. M/S. Dhaka Steel Works Ltd. & Ors. 1BLT (AD)-1

(d) The vestment of Dhaka Steel Works Ltd. & others under Articles 4(a) and Article-10(lA) of P.O. No. 27 of 1972 is valid and this vestment cannot be challenged in any court of law.

Bangladesh Vs. M/S. Dhaka Steel Works Ltd. & Ors. 1BLT (AD)-1

(d-a) High Court Division’s view relating to the release of property is wrong and its direction is illegal.

Bangladesh Vs. M/S. Dhaka Steel Works Ltd. & Ors. 1BLT (AD)-1

(e) Writ Petition Fails —Appeals Allowed As to the likely remedy available to the respondents, since I have found that the
order of placement of the enterprise under the corporation is valid, the government may. “if in the national interest it deems is expedient so to do’ transfer it to the respondents under Art. 4(2) of P.O. No. 27 of 1972. In view of the fact that three allied commercial concerns of the respondents have been released under the Court’s order this case deserves favourable consideration. So far as the Writ Petition is concerned, it must fail; the impugned judgment of the High Court Division is set aside and both the appeals are allowed, without any order as to costs.

Bangladesh Vs. M/S. Dhaka Steel Works Ltd. & Ors. 1 BLT (AD)-1

Majority View

Mustafa Kamal, J. delivering the majority judgment. (A.T.M. Afzal, J, and Latifur Rahman, J. concurring with him).

(f) The company Dhaka Steel Works Ltd. was an abandoned property and the placement took place in exercise of the general
power of vesting according to the minority view but it was held by the majority view that the property is not an abandoned one and its placement under the corporation was illegal. (1978) 30 DLR (AD) 169 dissented from.

Bangladesh Vs. M/S. Dhaka Steel Works Ltd. & Ors. 1BLT (AD)-1.

Presidents Order No. 27 of 1972

Bangladesh Industrial Enterprises (Nationalisation)
Order, 1972

Article-10(a)(d)

(g) Article I0(l)(d) of P.O. No. 27 of l972, as amended uptodate, stands as follows:

 

“10(1) on the commencement of this order, there shall be established the following corporations :-

(d) (i) Bangladesh Steel and Engineering Corporation, (ii) Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation, each of which shall have and exercise the powers of a Corporation under this order in respect of such industrial enterprises, including enterprises owned wholly or partly by the government under the Bangladesh Abandoned Property (Control, Management and Disposal) managed by any statutory corporation, as the Government may, by order published in the official Gazette place under it.”

(It may be mentioned that this Article was wrongly quoted in 30DLR (SC) 169 at page- 187).

Bangladesh Vs. M/S. Dhaka Steel Works Ltd. & Ors. 1BLT(AD)-1

(h) Article-10(I) (d) could not be applied to the company and its placement under the corporation was illegal.

Bangladesh Vs. M/S. Dhaka Steel Works Ltd. & Ors. 1BLT (AD)-1

Articles-4(a) and 10(1A) of P.O. No. 27 of 1972

Interpretation of Statute

Vesting is a consequence of placing—if placing is unlawful, vesting is illegal- Double protection-Meaning of—If cause is removed no single protection is left

With regard to Article-4(l), as introduced by Ordinance No. XXV of 1976, there is a fresh vesting without any further proceeding or formality. But this vesting is also very much dependent upon the lawful placing of an industrial enterprise under a Corporation. Vesting is a consequence of placing. Placing is the cause, vesting is the consequence. If placing goes, vesting also falls through. So whether it is Article 10(1A) or Article 4(a), the result is the same. If there is a lawful placing, vesting takes place under Article 10(IA) and a double vesting takes place under Article4(1). But if the placing itself was unlawful, the vesting did not take place, either under Article-l0(1A) or under Article-4(l). The consequence may have a double protection, but if the cause is removed, no single protection is left.

Bangladesh Vs. M/S. Dhaka Steel Works Ltd. & Ors.  BLT (AD)-1.

Bangladesh Abandoned Property [Control,
Management and Disposal] Order, 1972

Abandoned property, release of — the petitioner being a citizen of Bangladesh and residing in Bangladesh although, her property, under no justification, can be as abandoned property — relied on 40 DLR (AD) 116.

Bibi Quainrunnessa Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 4BLT (HCD)-3

 

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.