Principle—in disposing of the goods by the bank

In the instant case, the plaintiff-bank took initiative to release the goods from the sea-port at Chittagong, brought those to Dhaka and stored in a godown. The officials of the bank were aware that those imported clothing and fabrics were very expensive and its quality would certainly deteriorate with the passage of time, as such,they ought to have taken practical steps from commercial point of view, to dispose of those goods as soon as possible, to the relief of the borrower as well as of the bank both. In this case, the bank in its prudence ought to have
taken effective steps to dispose of the imported goods soon after its release from the port in 1977, on information to the defendant-borrower. The delay in such disposal in 1981 shows inefficiency on the part of the officials of the bank, during which period the dues of the bank mounted to the prejudice of the defendant while the quality of the goods continued to deteriorate. Had those goods were disposed of earlier, it would have not only fetched better price but also the dues of the defendant might have been substantially adjusted to the relief of both. In these circumstances, the bank cannot avoid its part of the responsibility altogether.

Janata Bank Vs. Alhaj Abdul Hannan Chowdhury 10 BLT (HCD)-482.


ITCL is a business company and undergoing simple business on dividend and profit basis and it receives money from different persons and invest the same for different products as contended by the petitioner’s counsel—Held : The ITCL do not come either within the ambit of Mudaraba or Musharik Method of business.

Islamic Trade & Commerce ltd. Vs. Bangladesh Bank & Ors. 9BLT (HCD)-183.


We are of the opinion that since the said section if concerned with the subject matter of vacancy of the office of directors which is an additional occasion for vacancy other than those contained in the Companies Act. 1994 and since the entire scheme of the said Act is to bestow upon the Bangladesh Bank a strong regulatory power over the functioning and business of bank companies, it is enough if the offending director is intimated in a notice under section 17 of the said Act that he has a personal liability to repay a loan of the kind described in section 17 and that on the date of notice the loan remains liquidated upon expiry of the stipulated date of repayment of either the whole loan or an installment thereof. It is not necessary to describe in the notice the nature and number of document on the basis of which the offending director is claimed by the lender Bank to be personally responsible for repayment of a loan or an installment. But if offending director denies his personal liability to repay the loan in his written representation the Bangladesh Bank may send for the incriminating
materials and confront the offending director with the same. 13]

Masudul Alam Chowdhury Vs. Bangladesh Bank & Ors 8BLT(AD)-13.


Admittedly, the petitioner took loan after providing adequate security and she did not repay her loan liabilities and as such the notice under Section 17 of the Act is a valid notice. 5.

Mrs. Khushi Akhter Vs. Bangladesh Bank & Ors 8 BLT(AD)-145.


Held: In the case of Md. Saiful Alam alias Masudul Alam Chowdhury vs. Bangladesh Bank and others. CP. 529 of 1999 we have held that it is the Bangladesh Bank which is authorized under the Act to determine the relevance, genuineness, connection between the lender Bank’s documents and the loans in question and the liability or non liability of the offending director and that the High Court Division is not the
forum for adjudication upon the documents of the offending director and the lender Bank.

Amiul  Haque  Chowdhury Vs. Bangladesh Bank & Anr. 10 BLT (AD)-36.

Section-31(l) read with Section-52(l)

The ITCL has been carrying on Banking business, whatsoever be its now and the Bangladesh Bank after examining the necessary documents legally, holding the enquiry after observation all the necessary legal formalities formed its legal opinion that ITCL is a Banking Company based on which it can be called sufficient materials and it has been made on the basis of records of ITCL itself.

Islamic Trade Commerce Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh Bank & Ors. 9BLT(HCD)-183


The facts and circumstances prima facie indicate that the proceeding that has been, initiated is only to circumvent the order passed by this Division in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 534 of 1999 of which Bangladesh Bank was fully aware. When Bangladesh Bank petitioner is fully aware of this Division’s order or had knowledge of the order they are bound to honour the same. Reliance is placed on the principle of law enunciated by the House of Lords in the case of Attorney General Vs. Times Newspapers Ltd. and another reporter in (1991)2 All England
law Reports Page-398 wherein it has been held that a person who is aware of an order of the .Court is bound to obey the same even though he was not a party to that when it affects the result of the earlier order. Here in the present case earlier order of this Division was to maintain status quo in respect of composition of the Board of Directors of the Bank and a copy of that order was sent to Bangladesh Bank by UCBL and in such a situation the Bangladesh Bank is bound to honour the order passed by this Division.

Bangladesh Bank & Ors. Vs. Zafor Ahmed Chowdhury & Anr. 9 BLT (AD)-230.


A reasonable opinion is formed by a reasonable person when he finds something relevant in existence in the objective world concerning any question or issue. If a person without the existence of any such relevant objective phenomenon fancies something and then forms an opinion concerning any question or issue such opinion is neither a reasonable opinion nor a reasonable person holds such an opinion. We have
already noticed that the “opinion” of respondent No. 1 concerning the appellant is based on the inspection report and the report and recommendation of the Standing Committee. So it cannot be said that the “opinion” held by the respondent No. 1 concerning the appellant is not a reasonable opinion of a reasonable person.

Abdur Rahim Chowdhury Vs. Bangladesh Bank & Ors 8BLT (AD)-146


Under the service jurisprudence when an employee is charge sheeted he is also put under suspension till conclusion of the inquiry proceedings. A Director, Managing Director or Chairman of a banking company does not serve under the Bangladesh Bank which has been merely entrusted with the powers of supervision and control of the banking Companies Act, 1991. So the requirement of formation of an
opinion by the Bangladesh Bank has been made before directing a Director. Chairman of Chief Execute of a banking company to refrain from performing functions of his office during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings against him for his removal from office under Section him for his removal from office under Section 46 of the Act. Such opinion must be formed on the basis of relevant materials on record and not fancifully without any such material nor on the basis of irrelevant materials. But such opinion need not be mentioned in the order communicated to Director, Chairman or Chief Executive of the banking company.

A Rahim Chowdhury Vs. Bangladesh Bank & Ors 8 BLT(AD)-280.