MOAZZAM HOSSAIN Vs. BANGLADESH BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by leave, arises out of the judgment dated 10.5.1999 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 3006 of 1998 discharging the Rule obtained against the order dated 17.9.98 (Annexure A) issued by the respondent No.2, General Manager of Bangladesh Bank, the respondent No.1, under section 17(1)(c) of the Bank Companies Act, 1991 (Act XIV/1991) informing National Bank Ltd, the respondent No.3, that the directorship of the appellant in that Bank has been automatically vacated on the expiry of two months from 9.9.95.

(2.) The appellant obtained the above Rule on the averments that on 3.9.95 National Bank Ltd. through Bangladesh Bank, issued a notice upon him under section 17 of Act 1991 directing him to settle his outstanding liability with National Bank Ltd within 2 months from the date of receipt of the above notice failing which the appellant would be deemed to have vacated his post as director of above Bank; in the said notice the appellant was shown liable for loan of Tk. 51.76 lacs against the A/C of Md. Amanullah though the appellant was merely a guarantor for the loan availed by said Md. Amanullah in the year 1983 and further the said loan being fully adjusted in the year 1989 there was no liability of the appellant against the said loan on the; date of issuance of the notice dated 3.9.95; other liabilities as shown in the above notice were against C C Loan of Tk. 17.70 lacs in the A/C of Emjad Enterprise and loan of Tk. 93.13 lacs, SOD of Tk. 29.44 lacs and PC of Tk. 5.59 lacs shown against A/C of York Garments Ltd. which were in fact the liabilities of Mosharraf Hossain, his elder brother, who is an independent business man for the last 30 years and the appellant had no business or monetary connection whatsoever with the said Emjad Enterprise and/or York Garments Ltd and the above position was already confirmed by National Bank Ltd. in their letter dated 3.3.96 (Annexure-B); the appellant by reply dated 4.9.95 informed Bangladesh Bank the above position but even then the Bangladesh Bank by notice dated 10.10.95 informed the appellant that his explanation was unacceptable; the appellant thus realizing that the proceeding initiated against him under section 17 of the Act 1991 would not be withdrawn filed Writ Petition No. 2297 of 1995 whereupon Rule was issued and, after hearing, the High Court Division by judgment dated 1.7.97 discharged the Rule holding that though against the liabilities as shown on account of Emzad Enterprise and York Garments Limited, the appellant, being merely a family member of Mosharaff Hossain, will not incur disqualification under section 17 of Act 1991 but against the A/C of Md. Amanullah, the guarantee given by the appellant being a continuing one, his liability against the loan continued as there was outstanding in the above A/C on 3.9.95. Being aggrieved the appellant moved the Appellate Division and obtained order dated 2.7.75 in CMP No. 258 of 1997 staying the operation of the above judgment dated 1.7.97 of the High Court Division and the above order of stay remained in force up to 26.4.1998 and consequently the operation of the notice dated 3.9.95, which was impugned in the above writ petition, also remained stayed till 26.4.1998, during the pendency of the above stay order the liability against the A/C of Md. Amanullah, for which the appellant stood as guarantor, deign fully adjusted, National Bank Ltd by letter dated 23.11.97 sought the approval of Bangladesh Bank to release the appellant from his liability as guarantor and in terms of the above Bangladesh Bank, by letter dated 4.12.97 (Annexure-C), absolved the appellant from his liability as guarantor and the appellant was also informed accordingly and in that view of the matter the appellant did not press for further extension of the stay order which was in force up to 26.4.98 and Civil Petition No. 15 of 1997 which in the meantime was filed by the appellant was also dismissed on 29.4.98 as the appellant did not press the same. But in spite of the above, Bangladesh Bank issued the impugned order dated 17.9.98 (Annexure A).

(3.) The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 opposed the above Rule by filing affidavit-in- opposition.