Dhaka Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh Bank, Dhaka & others, 15 BLT (AD) 2007 232

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 281 of 2005

Judge: Md. Ruhul Amin ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. A. J. Mohammad Ali,Mr. Ozair Farooq,,

Citation: 15 BLT (AD) 2007 232

Case Year: 2007

Appellant: Dhaka Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Respondent: Bangladesh Bank and others

Subject: Company Matter, Banking,

Delivery Date: 2006-06-18

Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Syed J.R. Mudassir Husain, CJ.
M.M. Ruhul Amin, J.
Amirul Kabir Chowdhury, J.
 
The Dhaka Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd.
………………....Petitioner
Vs
The Bangladesh Bank, Dhaka & others
………………….Respondents
 
Judgment
June 18, 2006.
 
Bangladesh Companies Act, 1991
Section 45 with 3
The respondent No. 1, Bangladesh Bank has power to issue such warning by publishing general notification in the newspapers to protect and safeguard the interest of the depositors. The petitioner’s area of business is restricted within the members of the society and there is nothing in the notification issued by the Bangladesh bank in respect of the petitioner’s business as a co-operative bank. …(6)
 
Lawyers Involved:
Mohammad Ozair Farooq, Senior Advocate, instructed by Md. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record - For the Petitioner
A.J. Mohammad Ali, Senior Advocate, instructed by Haridas Paul, Advocate-on-Record - For Respondent Nos. 2-5
Not represented - Respondent No. 1
 
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 281 of 2005
(From the judgment and order dated 01.02.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 655 of 2005).
 
JUDGMENT
M. M. Ruhul Amin J.
 
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.02.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 655 of 2005 summarily rejecting the writ petition.
 
2.         The writ petition was filed seeking a declaration that the notification of the respondent No.1, Bangladesh Bank published in various national dailies on 28.01.2005 and 29.01.2005 warning the members of the general public from dealing with the petitioner as it has been attracting deposits from the general public on the assurance of giving them high interest should not be declared to have been issued without any lawful authority.
 
3.         The High Court Division upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties rejected the writ petition summarily holding, inter alia, that under sections 44 and 45 read with section 3 of the Bangladesh Companies Act, 1991, the Bangladesh Bank is empowered to issue such warning to the members of the general public by publishing general notification in the newspapers to protect and safeguard the interest of the depositors.
 
4.         We have heard Mr. Mohammad Ozair Farooq, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.J. Mohammad Ali, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and perused the judgment of the High Court Division and other connected papers.
 
5.         It is not disputed that the petitioner, the Dhaka Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. is not a commercial bank and is not authorized by the Bangladesh Bank do general baking business like any other commercial bank.
 
6.         It appears that under section 45 read with section 3 of the Bangladesh Companies Act, the respondent No.1, Bangladesh Bank has power to issue such warning by publishing general notification in the newspapers to protect and safeguard the interest of the depositors. The petitioner's area of business is restricted within the members of the society and there is nothing in the notification issued by the Bangladesh Bank in respect of the petitioner's business as a co-operative bank. Therefore, there is no reason for the petitioner to be prejudiced by the impugned notification.
 
7.         In the circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court division upon consideration of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision. There is no cogent ground to interfere with the same.
 
8.         The leave petition is dismissed.
 
Ed.