Z Pipes Limited and another -Versus- Uttara Bank Limited and others

IN THE COURT OF 5TH JOINT DISTRICT JUDGE, DHAKA

TITLE SUIT NO. _____OF _____

Z Pipes Limited and another

PLAINTIFFS

-Versus-

Uttara Bank Limited and others

DEFENDANTS

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NOS. 1-4:

1. That the Suit filed by the Z Pipes Limited and another (“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.1-4 (hereinafter referred to as “the defendant”) and as such the Suit should be dismissed with costs.

3. That the Suit has been filed in mala fide intention to make illegal gain from the defendant. Since the Suit has been filed with mala fide 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 paragraph no. 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 denied. The defendant has every right to decline any application in relation to sanctioning any loan and/ or advance to any one considering the strength of the application and all other relevant factors.

11. That the statement made in the paragraph no. 3 is admitted.

12. That the statement made in the paragraph no. 4 is partly matters of record for which the plaintiff is under obligation to prove the same and partly denied. The statement regarding the simple interest is incorrect, false and fabricated.

13. That the statement made in paragraph no. 5 is mostly matter of record. The burden of proving the statements lies strictly upon the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant refrains from making any comments. The statement regarding the interest is denied. The Sanction letter clearly states the compound interest.

14. That the statements made in paragraph 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. The statement made regarding the interest is incorrect. In fact, the interest would be charged on the quarterly rest.

16. That the allegation made in paragraph no. 8 is denied. The defendant lends money to the plaintiff so that they could earn interest. The statement made regarding the interest is incorrect. In fact, the interest would be charged on the quarterly rest.

17. That the statement made in paragraph no. 9 regarding the issuing certificate is admitted. At the request of the plaintiff, the defendant renewed the credit facilities, the interest of which was 15.50% p.a. at quarterly rest i.e. compound interest.

18. That the statements made in paragraph no. 10 are matters of record. The burden of proving the statements lies strictly upon the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant refrains from making any comments.

19. That the allegation made in paragraph 11 is denied. The interest had been duly charged to the plaintiff. The compound interest was charged in accordance with the sanction letter. The plaintiff’s company became sick due to their own fault. The huge outstanding amount payable to the defendant is caused due to the non-payment of the plaintiff.

20. That the allegations made in paragraph no. 12 is false, fabricated, concocted and hence the allegation is denied.

21. The allegation made in paragraph no. 13 regarding the calculation of interest is false, fabricated, concocted. The interest duly charged on the basis of quarterly rest i.e. it is compound interest.

22. That the statement made in paragraph no. 14 is denied. The sanction, disbursement, enhancement, renewal of loan to any one are subject to the CIB report of Bangladesh Bank. Without having the CIB clearance from the Bangladesh Bank the defendant can not renew the credit facilities to the plaintiff. The statement made regarding the interest is incorrect.

23. That the statement made in paragraph no. 15 is partly matter of record where burden of proving the statements lies strictly upon the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant refrains from making any comments. The statement made regarding the compound interest and the allegation of illegal activities which leaded to shortage of running capital of the plaintiff is false, fabricated and concocted. As such the statement is denied.

24. That the allegation made in paragraph no. 16 is false, fabricated and concocted and hence the allegation is denied.

25. That the statement made in paragraph no. 17 regarding the interest is false, fabricated and concocted and hence, the allegation is denied.

26. That the statements made in paragraph no. 18 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.

27. That the allegation made in paragraph no. 19 is false, fabricated, concocted and hence the allegation is denied. The statement regarding the charging of the interest by the hired expert of the plaintiff is misconceived.

28. That the allegation made in paragraph no. 20 is false, fabricate and concocted and hence the allegation is denied.

29. That the statement made in paragraph no. 21 is false, fabricated and concocted and hence the allegation is denied.

30. That the allegation made in paragraph nos. 22 and 23 is denied. The defendant issued the statement of account correctly.

31. That the real fact of the Suit is as follows:

(a) That the plaintiff opened an account with the defendant in the course of the business being No. 729 on 24.07.1996. Thereafter at the request of the plaintiff made through various letters from time to time the defendant sanctioned various credit facilities by different sanction letters to the plaintiff. At the request of the plaintiff the said credit facilities were renewed and enhanced from time to time. The ultimate credit facilities by the defendant vide Sanction Letter Nos. UBL/CORP/ADV/2003/57, UBL/CORP/ADV/2003/57A & UBL/CORP/ADV/2003/57B dated 05.01.2003 are as follows:

Sl. Nature of the facilities Amount Validity up to
01 CC (Hypo) Taka 7.00 Crore 30.09.2003
02 CC (Pledge) Taka 6.00 Crore 30.09.2003
03 Letter of Credit including PAD Taka 2.00 Crore 30.09.2003
04 Term Loan Taka 6.72 Crore 30.09.2007

(b) That thereafter at the request of the plaintiff vide Sanction Letter No. HO/CD/2004/306 dated 13.01.2004, apart from the validity of the Term Loan facility, extended the validity of the above limits for repayment purpose only up to 30.09.2004. in addition, the defendant by the same Sanction Letter allowed the plaintiff to repay the Term Loan amount within 30.9.2007 in the following manner:

Year Installment
2003 Taka 10.00 lac per month
2004 Taka 14.00 lac per month
2005 Taka 17.00 lac per month
2006 Taka 18.00 lac per month
2007 (up to 30.09.07) Balance in lump sum

(c) That the plaintiff availed the aforesaid facilities, but, apart from the Term Loan, the extended validity for all the facilities have been expired leaving the almost the entire amount unadjusted by the plaintiff. the present outstanding liabilities of the plaintiff are as follows:

Nature of the facilities Outstanding as on 22.09.2005
CC (Hypo) Taka 11,08,96,138.44
CC (Pledge) Taka 9,35,39,033.61
Term Loan Taka 8,26,75,757.00
Total Taka 28,71,10,929.05

(d) That despite repeated requests and reminders of the defendant through various letters including letters dated 29.05.2004, 04.08.2004, 09.11.2004 and 03.04.2005, the plaintiff failed to repay the loan as per the terms of the sanction letter dated 13.01.2004.

(e) That in such situation the defendant through its learned lawyer served legal notice dated 01.06.2005 upon the plaintiff requesting them to adjust the outstanding liabilities lying with the defendant and by the same notice the defendant terminate the validity of the Term loan.

(f) That the defendant with a view to sell the mortgaged properties in compliance with Section 12 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, published “Auction Notice” in the “Daily Ittefaq” dated 24.08.2005 inviting tender from the interested buyers for sale of the mortgaged properties. However, the defendant could not sell the mortgaged properties due to filling Writ Petition No. 6723 of 2005 in the Honorable High Court challenging the legality of the said auction notice. The defendant could not dispose off the mortgaged properties before filing the present suit.

(g) That so far the sale of the hypothecated properties is concerned, no power of attorney was executed in favour of the defendant and as such the hypothecated properties could not be disposed off before filing of the instant suit.

(h) That in such situation the defendant had no other option but to file the Artha Rin Suit 219/2005 for the recovery of the defendant’s legitimate dues from the plaintiff. This Suit is now pending in the learned 4th Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka.

32. That 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 mala fide 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 the best of my knowledge and matter of records, whereof, we put my signature on the_________________, __________.

_______________________________________ Signature

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.