Argument of the contending parties
6. Mr. Moudud Ahmed, the learned’ Advocate for the petitioner appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Abdullah AI-Mahmud, takes us through the writ petition. the connected materials on record, the relevant provision of Section 17 of the Ain, 1991 and submits that under Section 17 of the Ain, 1991, the loan has to be taken as a director of a bank company and if after obtaining loan as a director of a bank company, a director of a bank company fails to repay the loan or any installment of loan or interest of loan or fails to pay any amount for which he is a guarantor, in such case only, the post of directorship shall stand vacated. He next submits that in the instant case, the petitioner became a director of SIBL on 22-111995 and the loan was sanctioned on 8-11-1994 and therefore, as the petitioner has not obtained loan as a director of SIBL, the provision of Section 17 of the Ain, 1991 is not applicable in his case and, as such, the post of directorship of the petitioner cannot be vacated under Section 17 of the Ain, 1991.
7. However, Mr. Moudud Ahmed admits that meanwhile, the petitioner resigned from the post of directorship of SIBL. But he adds that there is a difference between vacancy of post of directorship under Section 17 of the Ain, 1991 and vacancy of post of directorship by submitting resignation and so, the rule may be disposed of on merit.
8. In reply, Mr. Foyez Uddin Ahmed, the learned Advocate for respondent No. 2 appearing with the learned Advocate Ms Nahid Mahtab, takes us through the affidavit-in-opposition. the connected materials on record and contends that meanwhile, petitioner Abdul Awal Patwary has resigned from the post of directorship of SIBL on 16-1-2018 and it has already been accepted by the Board of Directors of SIBL and therefore, the rule has become infructuous and liable to be ddischarged.
9. However, he adds that the impugned Memos relating to ultimate vacancy of the post of directorship of the petitioner under Section 17 of the Ain, 1991 are lawful, as the petitioner is admittedly, a guarantor for the loan obtained by the Company of which he is, admittedly, the Managing Director, but he fails to repay the said loan. Therefore, the petitioner falls within the ambit of Section.17 of the Ain. 1991.
10. Mr, Abdur Rahman Hawlader, the learned Advocate for respondent No.4, takes us through the affidavit-in-opposition, the connected materials on record and contends that admittedly. The petitioner is the Managing Director. of the borrower company-Patwary Cold Storage Limited and that he executed personal guarantees for the loan and also mortgaged some properties for obtaining loan from Krishi Bank and the Company is a defaulting-borrower (?????? ?? ???????) and the petitioner being the Managing Director of the said company and guarantors for the loans is also a defaulting-borrower (?????? ?? ???????) ) in view of the provision of Section 5(gaga) of the Ain, 1991. He next contends that the petitioner, in fact, after obtaining loan in the year 1994-2001 in the name of the Company, invested the loan amount for the purpose of becoming a director of SIBL and he has not -repaid the loan, interest, guaranteed amount inspite of his capability to repay the same. He further contends that the petitioner for avoiding payment of loan obtained by the Company has adopted various cunning devices. He also contends that from the letter dated 21-1-2016 written by Krishi Bank to Abdul Awal Patwary, a director of SIBL, it is evident that the project loan amounting to Tk. 5,00,00,000 (five crore) was disbursed on 28-31995 and current capital loan amounting to Tk. 2,81,000 was disbursed on 4-3-2001 to the Company and both the loans are classified as “Bad and Loss (??? ????????) “. He further contends that the argument that the petitioner has not obtained loan while he was a director of SIBL is not also tenable. He finally contends that if any director of a banking company fails to repay the loan amount in view of the provision of Section 17 of the Ain, 1991, his post of directorship would automatically stand vacated upon his failure to repay the loan amount within two months from the date of notice for payment thereof and admittedly, the petitioner has not paid the loan within two months upon receiving the notice. Therefore, in either ways, the petitioner’s case falls within the purview of Section 17 of the Ain, 1991 and therefore, the rule is liable to be discharged with heavy costs.
Point for determination
11. In view of the arguments as advanced by the learned advocates for the contending parties, the sole question to be decided in this rule is the legality of the impugned Memos issued by respondent No.4 and respondent No. 3 dated 21-1-2016, 28-1-2016, 21-3-2016 and 3-4-2016.
Examination of record
12. We have examined the writ petition, the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No. 2. the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No.4 and the connected materials on record. We have also carefully studied the impugned Memos and the provisions of Section 17 of the ?????? ???????? ???, 1991.
Deliberation of the Court
13. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the Managing Director of the Company and he as the Managing Director of Patwary Cold Storage Limited obtained loan from Krishi Bank. There is also no dispute that the petitioner Abdul Awal Patwary mortgaged some properties and executed relevant documents as personal guarantor for the loan obtained from Krishi Bank and that the loan was not repaid.
14. In paragraph 25 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the loan was sanctioned on 8-11-1994 and the petitioner became a director of SI BL on 22-11-1995. But from the Memo dated 21-12016 written by Krishi Bank to the petitioner, a director of SIBL (Annexure-B 1 to the writ petition), it is evident that the project loan of Taka 5,00,00,000 (five crores) was disbursed on 28-31995 and the current capital loan of Taka 2,81,00,000 was disbursed on 4-3-2001 to the Company and both the loans are classified as “Bad and Loss (g`I ÿwZRbK)).”Thus, it is evident that the loan was disbursed to the Company, firstly, on 28-3-1995 before the petitioner became a director of SIBL and then loan was again disbursed to the Company on 4-3-2001 i.e. after the petitioner became a director of SIBL on 22-11-1995.
15. Therefore, the argument that loan was not obtained by the petitioner as a director of SIBL has no leg to stand upon. Rather, it is evident that the petitioner made incorrect statement in the writ petition.
16. Now let us study the provisions of Section 17 of the e¨vsK †Kv¤úvbx AvBb, 1991 For better understanding, the provisos of Section 17 of the Ain, 1991 is quoted below:-
?? ? ??????? ??? ???????? — (?) ??? ?????? ????????? ??????? ???–
(?) ???? ??????-???????? ???? ???? ??? ??????-???????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????????? ???? ?”??? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ????,
(?) ???????? ??????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ????, ????
(?) ???????? ????????? ??? ??????? ????? ??????? ???? ????????? ????? ????????, ???????? ????,
?????? ??, ??? ???? ??????-???????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????, ?? ??????, ??? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???????, ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ????? ?????? ??, ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?
(?) ??? ??????? ??-???? (?) ?? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????????? ????? ????? ?????, ????????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ?????????? ??????-???????? ?? ?????????, ?????? ?????????? ? ?????? ?????? ?
(?) ??-???? (?) ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ????????? ???? ????? ????? ?????????? ?????? ???? ??? ????????? ?????? ????? ?
(?) ??-???? (?) ?? ???? ?”??? ???????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ???? ?
(?) ?? ????? ????? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????, ????? ????? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ???????? ???, ???? (???, ??? ??? ?? ????) ?? ????? ????????? ???? ?
(?) ?? ????? ????? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ????, ????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????, ???? ??????”? ????????? ??????-???????? ?? ?????? ???????????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ? (??) ?????? ????? ???? ??????-???????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ?? ???? ??? ??????-???????? ?? ?????? ???????????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?? ? ”
17. We have carefully studied the aforesaid provisions of law. The above quoted Section 17 of the Ain, 1991 does not speak that the loan has to be obtained or the guarantee has to be executed for payment of an amount, while a person was a director of a bank company. Because, in Section 17(1)(ka) & (kha) of the Ain. 1991, it has been clearly stated as “???? ??????-???????? ???? ???? ??? ??????-???????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????????? ???? ?”??? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ??????”? ??????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????——— ?????? ?? ” ??????????, ??? ????? “???? ??? ??????-???????? ?? ?????? ??????????” would not have been incorporated/used in Section 17( I) of the Ain, 1991, had the legislature any intention that the loan has to be obtained and/or guarantee has to be executed for payment of an amount as a director of a bank company or financial institution.
Further there cannot be any such intention of the legislature that defaulter would be appointed as a director of a bank company and such person would continue to remain as a director of a bank company and only the person who obtained loan or executed guarantee as a director of a bank company would fall within the ambit of Section 17 of the Ain, 1991.
Moreover the directors of bank companies are to regulate and manage the affairs of the banks. Therefore, the intention of the legislature is that the provision of Section 17 of the Ain, 1991 applies to a director of a bank company irrespective of the fact as to whether the loan was obtained or guarantee was executed to pay an amount as a director or not. The mair ratio is whether such director is a person who fails to repay an advance or loan installment or loan interest or any amount of which he is a guarantor for repayment.
18. Admittedly, notice was issued upon the petitioner for payment of the dues of Krishi Bank and also by Bangladesh Bank and it was clearly stated in the notice that if the petitioner fails to repay Taka 2973 lac within two months, his post of directorship shall automatically stand vacated. Admittedly, the petitioner has not paid the amount within two months upon receipt of the notice. Therefore, we find no illegality in the impugned Memos issued by Bangladesh Bank as well as Krishi Bank (Annexures-G, F, B and B-1 to the writ petition).
19. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, vis-a-vis the law, we find no merit in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and we find merit and force in the submissions of the learned Advocates for Bangladesh Dank and Krishi Bank.
20. In such view of the matter, we find no merit in the rule.
21. Thus, the rule fails.
22. Accordingly, the rule is discharged without any order as to costs.
Communicate the judgment to respondents No.3 to 5 at once.