M/s. Y Enterprise -Versus- First Security Bank Limited and others

IN THE COURT OF 5TH JOINT DISTRICT JUDGE, DHAKA

MONEY SUIT NO. ________OF ___________

M/s. Y Enterprise

PLAINTIFF

-Versus-

First Security Bank Limited and others

DEFENDANTS

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NOS. 1-2:

1. That the Suit filed by the M/s. Y Enterprise (“the plaintiff”) is not maintainable in its present form and nature.

2. That there is no cause of action to file the Suit against the defendant Nos.1-2 (hereinafter referred to as “the defendant”) and as such the Suit should be dismissed with costs.

3. That the Suit has been filed in melafide intention to make illegal gain from the defendant. Since the Suit has been filed with melafide motive, the Suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. That the Suit is barred by the principles of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel.

5. That the Suit is framed on wrong conception of law and facts.

6. That the Suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties.

7. That the Suit is not maintainable as it did not comply with the legal formalities preceding the filing of a Suit. The Suit is liable to be dismissed summarily on the face of the plaint as the plaintiff filed the said Suit without any cause of action.

8. That the statements made in the Suit which are not specifically admitted hereinafter shall be deemed to have been denied by the defendant.

9. That the statements made in paragraphs 1 of the plaint are mostly matters of record. The burden of proving the statements lies strictly upon the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant refrains from making any comments.

10. That the statements made in paragraph No. 2 of the plaint are partly matters of record for which the plaintiff is under obligation to prove the same and partly admitted. The defendant approved C.C. (Hypo) facilities in favour of the plaintiff amounting to taka 12.00 lac which had been enhanced to taka 25.00 lac vide Sanction letter No. FSBL/BANG/ADV/2003/7757 dated 24.02.2003.

11. That the statement made in the paragraph no. 3 of the plaint is matter of facts. The plaintiff is under obligation to prove the same.

12. That the statement made in the paragraph no. 4 is partly matter of record for which the plaintiff is under obligation to prove the same and partly admitted. The defendant sanctioned revolving LTR (Loan against trust receipt) limit of taka 50.00 (fifty) lac in favour of the plaintiff vide Sanction letter No. FSBL/Bang/F.Ex-IMP/2004/1960 dated 20/05/2004.

13. That the statements made in paragraph No. 5 of the plaint are matter of facts. The burden of proving the statements lies strictly upon the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant refrains from making any comments.

14. That the statements made in paragraph No. 6 are mostly matters of record. The burden of proving the statements lies strictly upon the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant refrains from making any comments.

15. That the statements made in paragraph no. 7 are mostly matters of record. The burden of proving the statements lies strictly upon the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant refrains from making any comments. It is admitted that the plaintiff applied to the defendant for enhancing the LTR limit from 50.00 lac to 270.00 lac and for opening L.C. limit up to $ 2,00,000.00 (two lac) which is equivalent to taka 128.00 lac. The branch office sent proposal to the head office accordingly.

16. That the statements made in paragraph no. 8 are matter of facts. The burden of proving the statements lies strictly upon the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant refrains from making any comments. Since the defendant sent the enhancement proposal of the plaintiff to its head office, the defendant sanctioned taka 1.84 crore L.T.R. facilities in different times which was sufficient for running of the business of the plaintiff.

17. That the allegation made in paragraph no. 9 is denied. The closure of business institution of the plaintiff was due to plaintiff’s own fault. Since the plaintiff did not pay the dues in the L.T.R. account since 04.12.2004, the said account became the expired loan. The defendant requested the plaintiff to adjust the expired L.T.R. account vide a letter dated 30.11.2005 from the Branch Manager. The plaintiff was declined to get new credit facilities in accordance with the Banking Rule.

18. That the allegation made in paragraph no. 10 is denied. The shut down of the plaintiff’s business worth of crore taka was due to their own fault. The defendant made a series of reminders in written and orally to adjust the dues to the plaintiff since 30.11.2005 and to resume the business having adjusted the outstanding dues. But the plaintiff did not pay heed to the defendant and stopped the business transaction and started tactics not to pay the dues.

19. That the statement made in paragraph 11 is denied. The statement that the plaintiff had the balance of taka 12,31,317.45 in his account on 31.07.2005 is false and fabricated. In fact the plaintiff owed to the defendant that amount of money. The defendant requested the plaintiff to pay the outstanding dues and adjust the accounts maintained by the plaintiff. But the plaintiff did not pay outstanding dues till to date in spite of repeated request and personal approach by the defendant. Consequently the plaintiff’s account became classified. Therefore, he was not sanctioned any further credit facilities as per Bangladesh Bank Rules.

20. That the statement made in paragraph no. 12 is denied. Since the outstanding due was not adjusted even after repeated reminders, L.C. was not sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff. The statement that the plaintiff lost the raw materials worth of taka 2.00 crore is false and fabricated, as such, the statement is denied. When the plaintiff was requested to submit the stock report, the defendant was informed that there was no stock and all were sold out. From the reliable source it is revealed that the plaintiff had no debts in the market and the plaintiff purchased the land property and is engaged with other business.

21. That the statement made in paragraph no. 13 is denied. That the statement that the plaintiff was not sanctioned loan and its enhancement was false and fabricated. The plaintiff had not even more than 10 employees. But the statement that hundreds of employees lost their job because of lack of credit facilities from the defendant is false, concocted and fabricated. Hence, the statement is denied. The defendant was not obliged to open L.C. in favour of any classified account as per Bangladesh Bank Rules.

22. That the allegation made in paragraph nos. 14 is denied. The loss of business of the plaintiff, if any, was due to their own fault. The defendant is not bound to sanction loan in favour of the defaulter customer.

23. That the allegation made in paragraph no. 15 is denied. The statements made herein are false, fabricated, concocted and having melafide intention to defame the defendant. The loss of business and loss of fame of the plaintiff, if any, is due to their own fault. Even after sanctioning the plaintiff CC (Hypo) 25.00 lac and L.T.R. limit 50.00 lac, the defendant sanctioned taka 2.35 crore credit facilities in 2005. The defendant stopped sanctioning further credits in favour of the plaintiff as per Bank Company’s Act when the plaintiff became the defaulter account holder.

24. That the statements made in paragraph no. 16 is denied. The defendant is not required to pay any damages to the plaintiff in accordance with law.

25. That the allegation made in paragraph no. 17 is denied. The statements made herein are false, fabricated, concocted and having melafide intention to defame the defendant. The defendant published auction notice to sell the mortgaged property having being empowered by the Irrevocable Power of Attorney (IGPA) to sell and with the direction from the Artha Rin Court No. 2. As per these the defendant can sell the mortgaged property without notice. Therefore, filing the Writ petition in the Honorable High Court Division is the tactic of the plaintiff to make delay in payment the outstanding dues.

26. That the statements made in paragraph no. 18-20 are denied.

27. That the real fact is that the plaintiff opened an account with the defendant in the course of the business. In an application vide letter dated 10.04.2002 the plaintiff applied to the defendant for credit facilities. The defendant approved Cash Credit (Hypo) limit for 12.00 lac only @ 16% interest p.a. with quarterly rest subject to change from time to time vide Sanction letter No. FSBL/BANG/ADV/682/2002 dated 18.06.2002 in favour of the plaintiff for a period until 30.06.2003. Later on the plaintiff vide letter dated 04.12.2002 applied to the defendant for the enhancement of the credit facilities. The defendant vide letter no. FSBL/BANG/ADV/2003/775A dated 24.02.2003 approved the application for enhancement of Cash Credit (Hypo) taka 12.00 lac to taka 25.00 lac with the validity until 30.06.2003. Subsequently the above facilities was renewed vide letter no. FSBL/HO/CR/978/2004/4214 dated 15.07.2004 with certain terms and conditions in response to the request letter from the plaintiff to renew the facilities vide letter no. 04.07.2004. The defendant approved the Revolving LTR of taka 50.00 lac in favour of the plaintiff vide Sanction letter No. FSBL/BANG/FEX-IMP/2004/1960 dated 20.05.2004 with a validity of 01 year until 25.04.2005. The plaintiff again applied for enhancement of the LTR limit from 50.00 lac to 270.00 lac and for opening L.C. up to $2,00,000.00 which is equivalent to taka 128.00 lac. The defendant sent the proposal to the Head Office. The defendant paid the amount against the shipping documents of the plaintiff and its sister concern M/s. N.H. Enterprise and M/s. Delta Shoes Industries by creating PAD (payment against documents) Loan in favour of the plaintiff and its sister concerns. The defendant opened 7 LTR account in the name of the defendant, 2 LTR in the name of M/s. N.H. Enterprise and 3 LTR accounts in the name of M/s. Delta Shoes and Chemical Industries in different dates. The defendant requested the plaintiff to pay the outstanding dues and adjust the accounts maintained by the plaintiff. But the plaintiff did not pay outstanding dues till to date in spite of repeated request and personal approach by the defendant. The total outstanding dues in C.C. (Hypo) facilities of the plaintiff stands at 2,18,15,117.00 taka. The plaintiff did not pay heed to series of reminders to pay the dues from the defendant. The defendant issued legal notice upon the plaintiff on 08.10.2006 to adjust the then outstanding dues within 15 days. The plaintiff had the ample time and opportunities to adjust the outstanding dues. Finding no other alternative the defendant filed an Artha Rin Suit No. 199/2006 for realisation of taka 2,18,15,117.00 as on 31.08.2006 in the learned Artha Rin Adalat No. 2, Dhaka, which is now pending before the above learned Court.

28. That the only intention of the plaintiff is to harass and illegal gain from the defendant. Therefore, there is no cause of action arose to file this Suit against the defendant. The plaintiff added the defendant’s name in this suit with melafide intention to harass the defendant. This Suit is not maintainable against the defendant. Therefore, the Suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that your Honour would graciously be pleased to dismiss the Suit filed by the plaintiff with compensatory costs in favour of the defendant.

And for this act of kindness the defendant as in duty bound shall ever pray.

VERIFICATION

That the statements made above are true to our knowledge and matters of records whereof we put our signature on this the____ day of ___________, ______________-.