HAT AND BAZAR (ESTABLISHMENT AND ACQUISITION) ORDINANCE, 1959
(XIX OF 1959)
Section—2(1)(2)
Establishment of hat and bazaar — taking license from the Collector
Since it is nobody’s case that the plaintiff petitioner established any hat and bazaar in the suit land without obtaining necessary licence from the Collector as required under section 2(1) of the Ordinance, the forfeiture of the suit land by the Government under section 2(2) of the said Ordinance is illegal. The Government could, however, acquire the suit land for establishment of hat and bazaar on payment of proper compensation to the owner of the land.
Indu Moti Howlader Vs. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barisal and others, 18 BLD (HCD) 283.
Ref: (1969)2 1DLR(SC)50; 32DLR (AD) 29; 33DLR(AD)30; 44DLR 1 36;—Cited,
HINDU LAW
Section—182
According to the provision of Section 182 of the Hindu Law, the onus, obviously, is upon the alienee to prove the transfer to have been made for legal necessity. In the instant case, the onus is upon the transferee and transferee (defendants Nos. 1 and 2) as both of them contested the suit to prove the kinds of legal necessity led to the transfer of the suit land.
The word ‘Necessity when used in this connection has somewhat special, almost technical meaning. It does not mean actual compulsion, but the kind of pressure which the law recognises as serious and sufficient. The receipt even of full value for the property by a Hindu widow, where there is no pressure on the estate, will not justify the sale.
Shib Nath Das alias Shib Nath Sarker Vs. Shashi Bala Sarker and others, 13 BLD (HCD) 415.
Ref: Joyesres Vs. Raj Dewan, 1962(SC) 857; Promode Kumar Ray Vs. Binodini Halder, 21DLR. 673; Jopyanta Bijoy Chakraborty Vs. Gopesh Chandra Chakraborty, 35 DLR 319-cited.
Section—489
It enjoins that physical act of giving and taking of the adoptive son is absolutely necessary to constitute a valid adoption-All that is necessary is that there should be some overt act to signify the delivery of the adoptive boy from one family to another.
Non- exercise of the right of adoption by the window for a period of 12 years does not render the adoption invalid.
The adoption of a son to her husband by a Hindu widow under the Dayabhaga school of law relates back to the time of her husband’s death and it has thus a retrospective effect. An adoptive son is entitled to be put in possession of his adoptive father’s property left by him at his death.
Smriti Ranjan Das and another Vs. Bijan Behari Roy and anr, 14 BLD (HCD) 573
INCOME TAX ACT, 1922
Section—10 (2)(XVI)
The expenditure is a capital when it is in- cuffed for securing capital assets or advantage of enduring benefit to the business. But when it is spent for running the business, it becomes revenue expenditure:
The Commissioner of Taxes, Chittagong (South) Zone, Chittagong, Vs. Chittagong Jute Manufacturing Company Ltd., 13 BLD (HCD) 384.
Ref: Raja Bijoy Singh Dudhuria Vs. C.I.T. (1933)UTR. 135; C.I.T. Vs. Travancore Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. (1973)19 I.T.R 307; C.I.T. vs. S.M.T. Kamalabai Juthalal (1977) 108 ITR 755; C.LT. Vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas, (1961)41 ITR 367-Cited.
INCOME TAX ORDINANCE, 1984
Sections—1(86), 83(1), 89 and 90
Income Tax Act, 1922, Section—23(6)(4)
The Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 came into force with effect from 1st July, 1984. For assessment of any income prior to the coming into operation of this Ordinance, the Income Tax Act, 1922 and the Rules made thereunder would continue to apply as if this Act has not been repealed. This has been clearly spelt out in Section 1(86) of the Ordinance. In the instant case the assessment period ending on 30-6-1984 is to be regulated by the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1922.
The Commissioner of Taxes, Rajshahi Zone, Rajshahi Vs. Mr. Md. Abdul Motaleb Miah, 14 BLD (HCD) 607.
The Company under liquidation as per provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 1984, is a unit of assessment and its income is assessable to tax. Hence the demand made by the Deputy Commissioner of taxes is to be satisfied.
The Official Liquidator is under legal obligation to pay the tax which is assessed on the income of the Company arising out of interest upon deposit.
Dhaka Electricity Development Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation) And In the Matter of Affidavit of Facts in support of Summons taken out by Mr. Abdul Matin, Official Liquidator for direction., 13 BLD (HCD) 460.
Paragraph 27 of Part A of Sixth Schedule
The petitioner is an indigenous hillman and his business activities in supplying the rice under contracts to the Government is an economic activity. But for supply of rice outside the hill districts under the contract the petitioner is not entitled to exemption of payment of income tax as the income derived by the petitioner is from the economic activity carried on outside the hill districts.
Sampriti Chakma Vs Commissioner of Customs and others, 20 BLD (AD) 79.
Section—31
The transfer of land and building jointly owned by the assessee and his wife to a company against shares in the company is not a business transaction but an investment in their business. Even if the value of the property is more than that shown in the deed of transfer, the transfer did not give rise to any profit or gains assessable as capital gains of the assessee.
Md. Harasat Ullah v. The Commissioner of Taxes, 22 BLD (HCD) 356.
Ref: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Publix Industries 1969 PTD 622; M/s. A. K. Khan Plywood Co., Chittagong v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, East Pakistan 25 DLR(SC) 65; William Richard Doughty v. Commissioner of Taxes AIR 1927(PC)76.
Section—46A(1)
Subject to the provisions of the Ordinance, profits and gains of an industrial undertaking, tourist industry or physical infra. structure facility set-up in Bangladesh between the 1st day of July, 1995 and 13th day of June, 2000 (both days inclusive) shall be exempt from the tax payable under this Ordinance.
Homeland Footwear Limited Vs Chairman, National Board of Revenue and others, 21 BLD (HCD) 145.
Sections—79 and 85(1)
Since petitioner did not file any certificate or any material in support of her statement in the income tax return, contention that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority acted illegally and without jurisdiction in not sending back the case to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes for fresh consideration appears to us is not well founded one in that the certificate so filed in support of the loan shown in the income tax return being from a different person has rightly been left out of consideration by the income tax authorities.
Ms Maliha Banu Vs The Deputy Corn. missioner of Taxes and others, 19 BLD (HCD) 611.
Section—82
Income Tax Rules 1984, Rule—64A
If it was the consistent finding of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes that income tax returns for the assessment years were duly audited and certified by a chartered accountant as required under section 82 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1984, it cannot be said after a lapse of years that the returns were not submitted properly, correctly or in accordance with the requirements of law. If there was any illegality or irregularity, the same could have been raised by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes before accepting the returns.
American Express Bank lid. v. Chairman, National Board of Revenue and others, 22 BLD (HCD) 59.
Section—84
It appears that a return was filed by the assessee which was duly received by the department and in that view of the matter the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes ought to have considered the same in assessing the income of the assessee applicant. Therefore, the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained and it suffers from legal infirmities.
M/S. Union Corporation, Vs The Commissioner of Taxes, 20 BLD (HCD) 480.
Section—93
Once returns accepted by a competent authority certified that the returns are in order, unless otherwise found definite, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes is not competent to serve notice under section 93 of the Ordinance upon the assessee asking him to submit fresh returns, holding the returns already assessed and accepted as under-assessed.
American Express Bank Ltd. v. Chairman, National Board of Revenue and others, 22 BLD (HCD) 59.
Section—121
Where a notice does not meet the requirements of section 93, a writ petition under Article 102 of the Constitution is maintainable instead of approaching the Commissioner for revising the order under section 121.
American Express Bank lid. v. Chairman, National Board of Revenue and others, 22 BLD (HCD) 59.
Section—144
There is absolutely nothing to show that the petitioner has a permanent establishment in Bangladesh and that they were actually doing business in this country and that they themselves sold their products to any person in Bangladesh. If any profit is earned by the petitioners principal office in Korea under the convention they will be taxed in Korea. But they cannot be taxed for their earnings in Korea in Bangladesh which is protected under the convention which is a solemn document entered into between the two Government and which has the backing of section 144 of the Ordinance.
M/s Hyundai Corporation Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka and another, 19 BLD (HCD) 220.
Section—160
On perusal of the impugned order it appears that the Tribunal has allowed the gift made by Keramat Ali but disallowed the gift made by Md. Abul Kashem on the ground that the letter addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes came back unserved but in disallowing this gift the Taxes Appellate Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the assessee applicant in support of his contention submitted the certified copy of the statement of account of the donors and it further appears that the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes himself confirms that these gifts have been shown by the donors in their respective wealth statements. But this aspect of the case was overlooked by the Taxes Appellate Tribunal in disallowing the gift made by Md. Abdul Kashem. Thus, the order passed by the Taxes Appellate Tribunal do not withstand the scrutiny of law and as such the High Court Division held that the Taxes Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench—2, Dhaka was not justified in disallowing the gift made by Md. Abul Kashem on the ground of non service of letter addressed to him by the revenue authority.
Md. Serajul Hoque Vs The Commissioner of Taxes Intelligence and Investigation Zone, Dhaka, 20 BLD (HCD) 38.
Rule—17A(b)
Collection of tax from importers
The Collector of Customs or any other appropriate officer shall, for the purpose of making a collection of tax under section 53 of the Ordinance, in the case of any importer of goods, including those under the Wage Earners scheme, collect an amount calculated at the rate of [2.5%J of the value of the imported goods:
Provided that this rule shall not apply in the case of import of goods specified below:
(a) … … …
(b) raw materials for industries approved by the Bangladesh Small and Cottage Industries Corporation.
Provided further that where the Board is satisfied that an importer is not likely to have any assessable income during the year or the income is otherwise exempted from payment of income tax under any provisions of the Ordinance; it may, on application by such an importer, exempt such person from payment of tax under this rule.
Clause (b) of first proviso to Rule 17A of the Rules clearly contemplates that provision of Rule 17A shall not apply in case of raw materials for the industries only approved by the Bangladesh Small and Cottage Industries Corporation. The petitioners are not entitled to import any quantity of raw materials beyond their maximum utilization and production capacity of their respective industrial units as approved by Bangladesh Small and Cottage Industries Corporation.
M/s Musa Textile and others Vs Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Bangladesh and ors., 19 BLD (AD) 104.
INDEMNITY ORDINANCE, 1975 (L OF 1975)
The Indemnity Ordinance was expressly made by the President in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 93 of the Constitution. So, there was no extra magic in the Indemnity Ordinance which in normal times was required to be laid before the Parliament for its survival.
To give approval to a law is a qualitatively different act from enacting the law itself. An Ordinance when approved in the Constitution remains an Ordinance and it does not become a part of the Constitution. [Per A.T.M. Afzal, C.J]
Shahriar Rashid Khan Vs Bangladesh and others, 18 BLD (AD) 155.
Para 3A and 18 of the Fourth Schedule
The Indemnity Ordinance was promulgated to restrict the taking of any legal or other proceedings in respect of certain “acts and things done” prior to the promulgation of the Ordinance. The protection which was been given under paragraphs 3A and 18 to the “acts and things done” relate to those that were done in exercise of the powers derived or purported to have been derived from the Martial Law Proclamation. They have been ratified and confirmed and are declared to have been validly made, done or taken and shall not be called in question before any Court, Tribunal or authority on any ground whatsoever. Evidently, the acts and things which were done on the 15th August, ‘1975 to which indemnity was sought to be given by the Indemnity Ordinance were not done in exercise of the powers derived from the said Ordinance. Therefore, they have no nexus with the “acts and things done” referred to in paragraphs 3A and 18. [Per A.T.M. Afzal, C.J.]
Shahriar Rashid Khan Vs Bangladesh and others, 18 BLD (AD) 155.
INCOME TAX RULE, 1984
Paragraph 3A and 18 of the Fourth Schedule
The object of paragraphs 3A and 18 is to maintain the constitutional continuity of those laws after the revival of the Constitution till they are repealed, altered or amended by the competent authority. If paragraphs 3A and 18 were not incorporated in the Constitution then there would be utter confusion in the field of constitutional dispensation and law. There would be discontinuity of constitutional dispensation and the period in issue would remain outside the Constitution. Martial Law having ceased, the operation of ordinary civil. law continued. [Per Latifur Rahman, J]
Shahriar Rashid Khan Vs Bangladesh and others, 18 BLD (AD) 156.
Indemnity Ordinance is no part of the Constitution
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Articles—93(l) and 142
It appears that the Indemnity Ordinance, 1975 (L of 1975) was an ordinary legislation promulgated by the then President under Article 93(1) of the Constitution. This was protected and saved in the category of “other laws referred to in both paragraphs 3A and 18 of the 4th Schedule of the Constitution. So, the Indemnity Ordinance, 1975(L of 1975) is not a part of the Constitution, rather it is an ordinary law protected and saved in the category of other laws.
Shahriar Rashid Khan Vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs and others, 17 BLD (HCD) 113.
INDEMNITY (REPEAL) ACT, 1996
Indemnity is a void law
It appears that a void law though not declared void by any Court so long was legally repealed by the Parliament and as such there was no illegality or unconstitutionality in passing the Indemnity (Repeat) Act, 1996.
The Indemnity Ordinance, 1975 (L of 1975), is void-ab-initio being ultra vires of the Constitution. Agreeing with the decision reported in A.I.R. 1956 (All) 684, the High Court Division held that an unconstitutional Act is not a law, it confers no right, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection, it creates no office. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
Shahriar Rashid Khan Vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs and others, 17 BLD (HCD) 114.
Jail Killing not covered by Indemnity Ordinance
It is absurd to think that incident that took place on 3.11.75 was a part of the same transaction which took place on 15.8.75 in view of the fact that the Indemnity Ordinance of 1975 relates to the incident of 15th August, 1975 only, and not to the incident that place on 3rd November, 1975. There is no law whatsoever to immune the killers in jail on 3.11.75 from the legal consequences. This Indemnity Ordinance, 1975 dated 26.9.75 only related to 15th August, 1975 incident and it was in no way connected with the incident which took place in jail on 3rd November, 1975.
Shahriar Rashid Khan Vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs and others, 17 BLD (HCD) 114.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ORDINANCE, 1969
Section—2(xxviii)
A worker, is a person who enters into a contract of service under the management and does not include a person who works under the control and supervision of a contractor. The terms of employment must establish a relationship of master and servant or employer and employee between the person employed and the establishment, and it is not enough that the person is working in the premises of a certain establishment.
Karnaphuli Paper Mills Workers Union v. Karnaphuli Paper Mills Ltd. and another, 22 BLD (AD) 33.
Sections—5 and 10
It cannot be said that Section 5 of the amending Act is violative of Article 38 of the Constitution and so it cannot be said to be void.
Bangladesh Biman Sramik Union and ors Vs. The Registrar of Trade Unions and others, 13 BLD (HCD) 20.
Ref: Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Vs. Jagadish Swarup, A.I.R. 1971(S.C966; Tamizuddin Ahmed Vs, Pakistan, P.L.D. 1964 (S.C.)673; Kesoram Rayon Workmen’s Union Vs. Registrar of Trade Unions, A.I.R. 1967 .(Cal)507—Cited.
Section—36
Procedure and Powers of Labour Court
A Labour Court acts as a civil court for a limited purpose. So far as the procedural matter is concerned it will not exercise the powers like those given in Order IX or Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which the Civil Court exercises in a suit.
Md. Ibrahim Shaikh Vs. Chairman, Labour Court, Khulna Division, Khulna and others, 15 BLD (HCD) 647.
Ref: Muhammad Sabir Vs. The Agent Tarbela Joint Venture, Hazara, 1976 P.L.C. 185; Management Board of A.R. Howlader Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. The Chairman, First Labour Court, Dhaka, 28 DLR 368; Mis. Karim Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. The Chairman, Second Labour Court, Dhaka, 42 DLR 255—Cited.
Section—50
Where in a given case the employer unilaterally acts detrimental to the emoluments and benefits obtained under a terminated settlement such emoluments and benefits shall continue to remain in force till a new agreement is reached between the employer and the workers or an award is made by the Labour Court.
Zenith Packages Limited Vs Member Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others, 20 BLD(AD)267
Ref: The Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. D.J. Bahadur and ors, AIR 1980 (SC) 2181; Pakistan River Steamers Ltd. Vs. Province of East Pakistan and ors, PLD 1961 (SC)393—relied.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 1985
Section—47A
Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 (XVI of 1985)
Section—25(1)(b)
If section 47A of the I.R.O. is read with the amendment proviso to clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 25 of the Ordinance it becomes clear that the protection given to an officer of a trade union, during the pendency of an application for registration of such union, can be enforced by filing of an application under section 25 of the Ordinance, Otherwise protection given under section 47A of the Ordinance to an officer of a Trade Union, application for registration of which is pending, would be frustrated.
Star Alkaid Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Chairman 2’ Labour Court and another, 18 BLD (HCD) 130.
INLAND SHIPPING ORDINANCE, 1976
(LXXII OF 1976)
Section—52
Section 52 of the Shipping Ordinance, 1976 gives special powers to the Marine Court notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure to try any case under Chapter 1V for shipping casualties. The Marine Court exercises its jurisdiction as a criminal Court and it can award compensation. An order to pay compensation shall have the effect of a Civil Court decree and sub-section 3 of section 52 only speaks that it is recoverable as if it is a decree of a civil Court.
Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corporation Vs Al-Falah Shipping Lines Ltd. and others, 17BLD(AD)136
Ref: Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corporation Vs. Nazma Transport Company. 45 DLR 152.
Section—54
Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Authority (Time and Fare Table Approval) Rules 1970
RuIe—15(i)(c)
As this Rule empowers the Authority in giving direction to an owner to ply his vessel on any route as per timetable approved temporarily in his favour in the public interest and in such case the Authority may waive the requirements of any or all the Rules, the noncompliance of certain Rules will not make the timetable illegal and without lawful authority.
Sirajul Hoque and others p. Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Authority and others, 22 BLD(AD)1O
INSURANCE ACT, 1938
(IV OF 1938)
Insurance Law
It being a beneficial legislation, a Court of law is to see to the interest of the aggrieved person more than that of the insurer.
Meaning of “pending action’ as contained in condition No. 19 of the Insurance Policy it means not only a suit or other legal proceedings before. a Court but also means and includes any legal action or claim pending before the relevant Insurance Authority.
Shadharan Bima Corporation Vs. Sanjib Kumar Das and another, 14BLD(HCD)109
Section—2(BD)
Policy holder
‘Policy holder’ includes a person to whom the whole of the interest of the policy-holder in the policy is assigned once and for all, but does not include an assignee thereof who interest in the policy is defensible or for the time being subject to any condition.
M/s Janata Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs MIs Islam Steel Mills Ltd. and another, 21 BLD (HCD)96
Section—47B
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(V of 1908)
Section—34
Section 47B of the Insurance Act, 1938 as amended by ordinance XXV of 1970 provides for granting of interest on claims. This provision in fact, displaces the discretion of the court conferred by section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the matter of granting interest. Hence, the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to the statutory interest under section 47B of the Insurance Act. The court has no discretion in the matter.
Chalna Marine Products Ltd.; represented by its Managing Director Vs. Reliance Insurance Ltd.; represented by its Managing Director and ors, 18 BLD(AD)69
Section—47B
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908)
Section—34
The amended provision of the Insurance Act displaces the discretion of the Court in the matter of granting interest.
Bangladesh General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chalna Marine Products Co. Ltd., 19 BLD (HCD)439
Ref: 18 BLD(AD) (1998) 69: 50 DLR (AD) 100—Cited.
INVESTMENT BOARD ACT, 1989
(XVII OF 1989)
Sections—11(6) and 14(4)
Approval of project and exempted rate of duties
The scheme of the Act seems to be that the decision of the Board of Investment relating, inter alia, to facilities for implementation of a project in due time shall be implemented as a Government decision. Not only that, under section 11(6) when the Board of Investment decides that a project should get the benefit of an S.R.O. it amounts to a decision of the National Board of Revenue itself “which shall be implemented.”
The Chairman, National Board of Revenue and others Vs Beximco Infusions Ltd., Dhaka, 17 BLD(AD)83
LANT DEVELOPMENT TAX ORDINANCE,1976 (XLII OF 1976)
Section—3 (1) (b) (i)
Land Development Tax Rules, 1976
Rule — 4(2)
In the Ordinance non-agricultural land in section 3(1)(b)(i) has been classified for the purpose of rate of tax into commercial or industrial purposes and residential or other purposes for which it is used. Under Rule 4(1) the Revenue Officer has been authorised for the purpose of making assessment under the Ordinance to classify a land with reference to the use therefor. Rule 4(2) provides that if any land is used partly for residential or other purposes, the land shall be classified as land for industrial or commercial purposes and it shall be assessed accordingly. There is no conflict between section 3(1 )(b) of the Ordinance with Rule 4 of the Rules.
Advanced Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Narayanganj, 16 BLD(AD)291
LAND REFORMS ORDINANCE, 1984
Section—6
The proviso to section 6 of the Ordinance provides that this section shall not be a bar against acquisition of a homestead under any law. A decree in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of homestead land passed by a civil court cannot be rendered nugatory by application of section 6 of the Ordinance.
Md Abdus Sobhan Sheikh Vs Md Jobed Ali Sheikh and others, 21 BLD(HCD)223
Section—6
Section 6 of the Ordinance bars legal process in respect of any land within rural area which is being used as a homestead by its owner.
Abul Kashem Gazi & ors. Vs Sheikh Nazrul Islam & ors, 21 BLD (HCD) 244.
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS AND BAR COUNCIL ACT, 1965 (III OF 1965)
Chapter VII—Conduct of Advocates
Section—36
Punishment of advocates for misconduct
Bar Council Canons of Professional Conduct and Etiquette
Chapter II, Clause 4
From a reference to the Bar Council canons of professional conduct and etiquette framed under The Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act, 1965 it appears that there is no prescribed fees to the lawyers. It has only been said that in accepting legal fees some considerations are to be made by the Advocates themselves with regard to the time, labour and intricacies of the case. These instructions are mere guide-lines and it has no binding force. Hence, the High Court Division rightly held that the amount charged. as legal fees is not disproportionate as there is no fixed standard of fees of Advocates.
Bangladesh Bar Council Vs. Mr. Khawja Abdul Gani and another, 18 BLD(AD)64
LEGAL REMEMBRANCERS MANUAL, 1960
Chapter XII
Defence for undefended accused
Chapter XII of the L.R. Manual. 1960 provides that an accused person is charged with any offence which punishable with death but he is unable to arrange for his own defence by engaging an advocate of his own, the State shall appoint an advocate to defend him in the case at the expense of the State. Violation of this mandatory provision of law renders the trial and the resultant conviction illegal.
Sentu Vs. The Govt. of Bangladesh and others, 18 BLD(HCD)39
Ref: 36DLR333: 45 DLR400: 13BLD r93)260-cited,