BANKING COMPANIES ORDINANCE, 1962

 

BANKING COMPANIES ORDINANCE (LVII OF 1962)

 

Sections—2,
60, 61 and 62

Section 2,
60, 61 and 62 of the Banking Companies Ordinance are read with those of section
171 of the Companies Act and the provision section 7 read with Rule 6 of
Schedule II of the P.D.R. Act—It appears that the provisions of Banking
Companies Ordinance shall be effective in addition to and not in derogation of
the Companies Act or any other law for the time being in force, excepting the
provisions which are specifically made in the Ordinance—So, the provisions as
provided in the aforesaid laws shall be read together harmoniously.

The Official
Liquidator, East Bengal Commercial Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Mrs. Jahura
Khatun and others; 10 BLD (HCD) 392.

 

Sections—60,
61 and 63

Banking
Companies Ordinance—Property attached by the Company Judge—District Judge held
auction on the direction of the Company Judge—District Judge not competent to
question the attachment and to set aside the auction sale-—Code of Civil
Procedure (V of 1908) Ss. 38, 42, 47, 151 and Or. 21 R.90.

In re Kumud
Ranjan Sarker and others; 1 BLD (HCD) 251.

Ref.
1 BLD 96.

 

Sections—60,
63(3) (9)

Execution
of decree passed by Company Judge under section 63(3) of Banking Corn- pan ies
Ordinance—Subordinate Court in execution cannot question the legality of the
decree—Section 63 (9) of the Ordinance empowers Company Judge to entertain
application under section 63(3) beyond the statutory period of limitation—Code
of Civil procedure (V of 1908), S. 47.

Tripura
Modern Bank Ltd. Vs. Shuva Karan Rajgharia; 1 BLD (HCD) 96.

 

Section—61

Investigation
of claims and objections to attachment of attached property—Objector filing
objection before Executing Court (Subordinate Judge) claiming title thereunder—High
Court Division having exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide any claim
made by or against Banking Company while in Liquidation—Whether objection
application maintainable and hit by section 61 of Banking Companies Ordinance,
1962?

Section
61 of the Banking Companies Ordinance meant for speedy disposal of a winding up
proceeding, confers upon the High Court Division exclusive jurisdiction to
entertain and decide any claim of a Banking Company in liquidation.

It,
therefore, appears that the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962 which came into
effect on 7th of June, 1962 male special provision for Banking Companies when
they are in liquidation and in a case of Banking Company in liquidation, the
law has empowered only the High Court Division giving exclusive jurisdiction to
entertain and decide any claim made by or against a Banking Company which is
wound up.

Md. Bazlul
Ghani Vs. The Pioneer Bank Ltd. Comilla; 10 BLD (HCD) 354.

Ref.
PLD 1964 (Dhaka) 741(1964) 16 DLR 656.

 

General
statutes and Special statutes

Conflict
between—non obstante clause— harmonious construction.

The
special statute prevails over general statute—If the provision of section 171
of the Companies Act comes into conflict with the provision of section 61 of
the Banking Companies Ordinance, then, the provision of section 61 of the
Ordinance would prevail— Therefore, though Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 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 said Banking Company Ordinance by the
non-obstante clause has made the provisions of section 61 of the Banking
Companies Ordinaries along with other provisions following thereafter, to
prevail over any other provision of the Companies Act, or the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure or Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the
time being in force.

Md. Bazlul
Ghani Vs. The Pioneer Bank Ltd. Comilla; 10 BLD (HCD) 35.

 

Section—62

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.

 

Section—65

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.

 

Sections—66
and 72

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.

 

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.