[P.O. No. 128 of 1972]


The Sangstha, alleged in its petition that was established under P.O. No 128 of 1972 to provide credit facilities and other assistance to industrial concerns Bangladesh. The opposite party No. I Tapashee Shipping Lines Limited is a public limited company carrying on the business of water transport—On the application of (Tapashee, the Sangstha sanctioned a loan to Tapashee,, for acquisition of 2 (Two) 600 DWT cargo vessels – To that effect a loan Agreement was concluded between Tapashee and the Sangstha on 31.5.1980 — On 28.9.1980 a tripartite contract was entered into between the Sangstha and
Tapashee on the one hand as “Purchaser and the opposite party No.6 Dira Dockyard and Engineers Limited, a ship building company. It was stipulated in the tripartite contract that the dockyard will build at its own site. 2 (Two) coasters of 600 DWT capacity in accordance with specifications drawn by the Sangstha and deliver the same to Tapashee.

The total price of the 2 (Two) coasters will be Tk.95,75,000/- out of this amount the Sangstha will pay to the dockyard Tk.70,00,000/- will be paid by the Tapashee through a crossed cheque on a scheduled bank—the work order was placed on 28.10.1980 and last date of delivery of the vessels was 16.12.1981—But the dockyard in violation of the contract and the letter of credit had imported/procured secondhand !reconditioned marine engines. Tapashee was asked by the Sangstha but Tapashee did not care to reply — The project was also discussed by the Martial Law Investigation Committee and the disbursed amount the Sangstha claims a sum of Tk 64.46 lakhs due upto 1 .1 .1983.

Held: In the face of such grave allegations Tapashee chose for reasons best known to it not to give any reply to the series of letters addressed to it by the Sangstha and remain silent which was trying to salvage the project. There cannot be any mariner of doubt that the Sangstha in the aforesaid circumstances became entitled to repayment of the loan under Article 32 That being so, there can also be no doubt that the Sangstha was fully entitled to proceed against the opposite party respondents No. 1-5 under Article 33 for realisation of the loan. Thus in any case it must be said that the High Court Division upon a Mistaken view of the law and facts wrongly held that Article 33 was not attracted in the case of the aforesaid opposite party-respondents. In view of the discussion above, the Sangstha’s appeal is liable to be allowed.

Dira Dockyard & Engineers Ltd & Ors. Vs. BSRS & Ors. 3BLT(AD)-207