Judgment text0% read
Browse the contents
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website ↗
Case information
| Court | Supreme Court of Bangladesh — High Court Division |
|---|---|
| Case reference | Writ Petition 15674/2023 |
| Case-reference year | 2023 |
| Case type | Writ Petition |
| Court website upload date | 21-MAY-24 |
The case-reference year is not the judgment year. The court website upload date is not a judgment date.
Official index description (excerpt)
Source: Supreme Court official index.
Since till date the petitioner bank did not release the personal guarantee of the respondent No. 9, as is apparent from office letter dated 05.05.2016 (Annexure-C2) and pursuant thereto the name of the respondent No. 9 has been enlisted in the CIB report of Bangladesh Bank hence, upon allowing the prayer of the respondent No. 9 giving direction upon the petitioner bank to exclude the name of the said respondent from the list of CIB of Bangladesh Bank, is not tenable in the eye of law. As has been observed earlier, matter of CIB is in the absolute domain of Bangladesh Bank; when Bangladesh Bank is not a party to the Artha Rin Suit as such, giving direction upon the petitioner Bank, a financial institution being supervised and regulated by Bangladesh Bank, to exclude the name of the respondent No. 9 from the list of CIB is a glaring instance of non application of judicial mind of the Adalat in question. Last but not the least, Artha Rin Suit No. 691 of 2016 is still at trial stage; as such, without taking evidence in support of the pleadings of the respective parties passing the
[Excerpt ends; the complete index description is retained in the catalogue JSON.]