A. M. ZAHIDUL ALOM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On an application under article 102 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a defendant in Artharin Suit, obtained this rule nisi, challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 18.03.2010 passed by Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka in Artha Rin Suit No. 81 of 2009. The petitioner also sought for a direction to strike out his name as defendant from the Artha Rin Suit No. 81 of 2009.

(2.) The facts relavant for disposal of the rule, in brief, are that the petitioner, carrying on a business in manufacturing cloth and fabrics, in particular kitchen towel, under the name and style of M/S. Sun Textiles, a proprietorship firm, used to export its products abroad since 1998-2002 keeping good relationship with the respondent No.5 Janata bank. The respondent No.3, Bangladesh Bank vide its F.E. circular dated 02.10.1995 and the Janata Bank vide its F.D circular dated 10.06.1997 (Annexure- A and A(1) respectively) formulated the policy for providing cash incentive to those who were engaged in exporting the hand loom fabrics and textile products to abroad. As per the aforesaid circular the petitioner was entitled to get 25% cash incentive against the custom bond or duty draw back on his export bill through the respondent Janata Bank. In compliance to that the respondent Janata Bank has disbursed an amount of Tk. 3,92,488/- as cash incentive to the petitioners account against its export bills. Since the export bills of the petitioner have been placed before the respondent No.3, as per requirement of its circular dated 02.10.1995 the Bangladesh Bank (respondent No.3) was bound to repay the said amount to the (respondent No.5) Janata Bank. But the respondent Bangladesh Bank made some delay in repaying the cash incentive amount as disbursed by respondent Janata Bank in favour of the petitioner. The respondent Bangladesh Bank, is dealing with the cash incentive facilities as per decision of the Government and on this regard they published the circular dated 02.10.1995; thereby the respondent Bangladesh Bank was bound to adjust the same but failed to do so.

(3.) On this back drop the respondent Janata Bank, imposing interest thereon, filed Artha Rin Suit No. 103 of 2006, before the Artharin Adalat No.1, Dhaka, impleading therein the present petitioner as defendant No.1, for realizing its outstanding dues claimed at Tk. 6,51,712/-. The petitioner by filing a written statement on 18.04.2007 contested the suit contending inter-alia that the amount as claimed in the suit is relating to an amount which has been facilitated, in favour of the defendant-petitioner as cash incentive against its export bills, by the plaintiff Bank. As per their own circular, it was the obligation of Bangladesh Bank to adjust the same infavour of the plaintiff Janata Bank and the defendant-petitioner has no liability to repay the dues incurred against cash incentive as claimed in the suit; as such, the Bangladesh Bank is liable to repay the same and thereby Bangladesh Bank is a necessary party to the suit. Subsequently vide the Courts order dated 16.07.2007 Bangladesh Bank was made a party to the suit as defendant No.2 and ultimately the suit was transferred to the Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka and renumbered as Artha Rin Suit No. 81 of 2009.