BANGLADESH KRISHI BANK Vs. MEGHNA ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals by leave at the instance of Bangladesh Krishi Bank are against a common judgment and order passed by Division Bench of the High Court Division on 2-12-92 disposing Writ Petition No.3 of 1989 (Comilla)/Writ Petition No.1950 of 1991 (Dhaka) and Writ Petition No.2 of 1989 (Comilla) Writ Petition No.1949 of 1991 (Dhaka) allowing the two writ petitions, making the Rules absolute declaring Certificate Case Nos.318 and 319 of 1986-87 and notice issued under section 10A of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 are passed without any lawful authority and are of no legal effect.

(2.) Respondent No.1, namely, Meghna Enterprises Ltd. a cold storage and Ice plant at Barkamta under Debidwar Police Station, Comilla applied for loan from Bangladesh Krishi Bank, Monoharpur Branch, Comilla against pledge of goods. Bangladesh Krishi Bank sanctioned an amount of Taka 30 lakh, which was repaid by respondent No.1 with interest in full. Respondent No.1 thereafter applied for loan in the year 1982 and the appellant-Bank again sanctioned Taka 29.50 lakh against pledge of potatoes. In 1981-82, respondent No.1 suffered a business loss and consequently it failed to repay the loan with interest. In the year 1983, the appellant-bank sanctioned an amount of Taka 20 lakh to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 applied for remission of interest of 1982 but that was turned down by the appellant. Again the appellant-Bank in 1984 sanctioned an amount of Taka 34 lakh in favour of respondent No.1. During the selling season the price of potatoes further dropped and respondent No.1 could adjust only 83% of the loan keeping the balance outstanding. The outstanding loan of the appellant having not been paid, Bangladesh Krishi Bank instituted two Certificate Cases in the Court of General Certificate Officer, Comilla, being, Certificate Case Nos.318 and 319/1986-87 for an amount of Taka 4,5,81,646.00 and Taka 32,22,646.50 along with expenses being the claim of Bangladesh Krishi Bank. The General Certification Officer, Comilla issued notices in the certificate cases demanding payment of the aforesaid sum of money from respondent No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice and directed the company not to transfer any moveable or immovable properties. On receipt of the said notices under section 10A of the Public Demands Recovery Act the company on 3-12-88 filed a petition before the General Certificate Officer stating that the claim of the Bank is not correct and demanded determination of the amount by the General Certificate Officer. The General Certificate Officer on receipt of the petition of the company directed the defaulting company to appear through a lawyer and to file an oral or written statement regarding the correct statement of the loan amount. Thereafter respondent No.1 again on 4-12-88 filed a petition praying for directing the bank to submit the statement of accounts and also prayed for one months time. But that prayer was not allowed by the General Certificate Officer. Hence, these two writ petitions were filed by the company challenging the certificate proceedings taken by the appellant-Bank.

(3.) The case was contested by Bangladesh Krishi Bank by filing an Affidavit-in-opposition and supplementary affidavit contending that the writ petition was not maintainable and it is also hit by the provision of Bangladesh Bank Order No. 27 of 1973, President Order No.27 of 1973. The Krishi Bank also asserted that the writ petitioner made inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and the writ petitioner has come before the court with unclean hands. The Bank further asserted that in spite of repeated requests and reminders respondent No.1 having not repaid the loan amount the certificate proceedings were started in accordance with law.