Z Pipes Limited and others -Versus- National Bank Limited and others

IN THE COURT OF 5TH JOINT DISTRICT JUDGE, DHAKA

TITLE SUIT NO. ____OF _________

Z Pipes Limited and others

PLAINTIFFS

-Versus-

National Bank Limited and others

DEFENDANTS

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

1. That the Suit filed by the Z Pipes Limited (“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 malafide intention to make illegal gain from the defendant. Since the Suit has been filed with malafide 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 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 matter 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. It is admitted that the plaintiff made a request to the defendant for transfer of all account of the plaintiff in National Bank, Dilkusha branch to National Bank, Motijheel branch.

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 will 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 can earn interest.

17. That the statement made regarding the issuing certificate is admitted. In response to the request from 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 has been duly charged to the plaintiff. The compound interest is 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 statement made in paragraph no. 12 in relation to the achievement of National award is 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 illegally imposed interest is false and fabricated.

21. Except that the interest the statement made in paragraph 13 is admitted. The interest 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 statement made in paragraph no. 16 regarding the reschedule of the liability is admitted. It is a matter of fact that the plaintiff did not pay their installment as per reschedule arrangement.

25. That the statement made in paragraph no. 17 regarding the second time rescheduling arrangement of the overdue amount is admitted.

26. Except the statement that the defendant made fraudulent practice and obtained huge amount of money in the name of rescheduling the due illegally which caused serious loss and damage to the plaintiff, the statement made in paragraph no. 18 is admitted.

27. That the statement made in paragraph 21 is denied. The statement regarding mode of calculation of interest is misleading, concocted and fabricated.

28. That the statement made in paragraph no. 22 is denied. The interest would be calculated on the basis of the quarterly rest refers to the compound interest.

29. That the statement made in paragraph no. 23 in page no. 47 is denied. The plaintiff agreed to the compound interest mentioned in the Sanction letters and availed the credit facilities.

30. That the statement made in paragraph no. 23 (the numbering of the paragraph is incorrectly mentioned in the plaint) in page no. 48 is denied. The account statement prepared by the plaintiff is fabricated, concocted and ill-founded.

31. That the statement made in paragraph no. 24 is denied. By this statement the plaintiff is simply ignoring the valid claim of the defendant to recover the outstanding dues.

32. That the statement made in paragraph no. 25 is denied.

33. Except that the defendant received the legal notice from the plaintiff the statement made in paragraph no. 26 is denied.

34. That the statement made in paragraph no. 27 is denied.

35. That the real fact is that the plaintiff opened an account with the defendant in the course of the business and had been availing various credit facility which are as follows:

Sl. Nature of the facilities Amount
01 CC (Hypo) Taka 4,00,00,000.00
02 CC (Pledge) Taka 1,00,00,000.00
03 Letter of Credit Taka 2,00,00,000.00

Subsequently the defendant enhanced above credit facilities and extended a new guarantee facility vides its Sanction Advice dated 01.08.1995 which is as follows:

Sl. Nature of the facilities Amount
01 CC (Hypo) Taka 5,00,00,000.00
02 CC (Pledge) Taka 2,00,00,000.00
03 Letter of Credit Taka 2,00,00,000.00
04 Guarantee, PG/BG Taka 14,00,000.00

The defendant vide its Sanction Advices dated 28.09.1998, 26.10.1999, 25.04.2000, 03.10.2002 renewed all the above facilities and the validity for all facilities had been extended up to 31.12.2002 at the request of the plaintiff. The defendant at the request of the plaintiff vide letter 04.08.2003 re-schedule the entire liability of the plaintiff vide Sanction Advice dated 28.06.2004. Under the terms of the aforesaid Sanction Advice the plaintiff was under an obligation to adjust the then outstanding taka 8,07,48,346.11 (eight crore seven lac forty eight thousand three hundred forty six taka and eleven paisa) in the following manner:

(a) down payment of taka 50,00,000.00; and

(b) The remaining amount of taka 7,57,48,346.11 including interests at the rate of 13% p.a. based on the quarterly rest shall be adjusted in 20 quarterly installments of taka 60,00,000.00 commencing from July-September, 2004 to April-June 2009.

The plaintiff thereupon in violation of the terms of the Sanction letter has miserably failed to pay any installment from the very inception except that the down payment. Due to non-payment of the installment by the plaintiff, the re- scheduling arrangement stood cancelled. The plaintiff did not pay heed to series of reminders to pay the dues from the defendant. The defendant issued a final notice upon the plaintiff on 19.05.2005 followed by the legal notice on 31.05.2005 to adjust the then outstanding dues within 15 days. The plaintiff acknowledged their debt from time to time and finally vide letter dated 31.10.2004. 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. 176/2005 in the 3rd Artha Rin Court, Dhaka for realisation of taka 9,07,32,105.71 (taka nine crore seven lac thirty two thousand one hundred five and seventy one paisa) as on 25.06.2005, which is now pending before the above learned Court.

36. 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 malafide 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___________ day of _________________.