IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

Writ Petition No. 15920 of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

Silver Composite Textile Mills Ltd (Unit-3, Textile), of B.K Bari, Taltoli, Monipur, Mirzapur Bazar, Gazipur Sadar, Gazipur, Bangladesh and also of Silver Tower, 16th Floor, Gulshan Avenue, Gulshan-1, Dhaka-1212, represented by its Managing Director

….Petitioner Versus

Bangladesh Bank, the Central Bank of Bangladesh, represented by its Governor, Bangladesh Bank Bhaban, Motijheel C/A, Dhaka and others

….Respondents

Mr. Shah Monjurul Hoque, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Muhammad Harunur Rashid, Advocate

….For the Petitioner

Mrs. Quamrun Nahar Mahmud, Advocate

….For the Respondent No. 2

Mr. Sk. Md. Morshed, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohammad Samiul Huq, Advocate

….For the Respondent No. 4

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Iqbal Kabir

And

Mr. Justice Md. Akhtaruzzaman

Judgment on 29.05.2024.

Md. Iqbal Kabir, J:

At the instance of the petitioner, this Rule Nisi under adjudication, was issued on 11-12-2023, as in the following terms:

“Let a Rule Nisi be issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned inaction of the respondent No. 1 in not issuing necessary orders in accordance with sections 45 and 49(1)(cha) of the Bank Companies Act, 1991 upon the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for holding payment under commercial invoice EXP/FLM /9000064826/23-24 dated 27.07.2023 for USD 81,321.41 against LC No. 175923020125 dated 20.07.2023 which has been issued by the respondent No. 3 in favour of the respondent No. 4 should not be declared illegal, without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and as to why the respondent No. 1 should not be directed to issue necessary orders in accordance with sections 45 and 49(1)(cha) of the Bank Companies Act, 1991 upon the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for holding payment under commercial invoice EXP/FLM/9000064826/23-24 dated 27.07.2023 for USD 81,321.41 against LC No. 175923020125 dated 20.07.2023 and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.”

The short facts stated in this application are that the petitioner is a textile company carrying out its business of textile with a good reputation. The petitioner has been running its business and thereby entered into a contract with respondent No. 4 for importing blended yarn who issued a proforma invoice dated 10.06.2023 containing terms and conditions. Upon accepting the terms opened LC bearing No. 175923020125 dated 20.07.2023 in favour of respondent No. 4 for the amount of USD 1,08,000.00 (Annexure-B). Following all formalities exporter loaded the blended yarn on board and on arrival upon making payment of all fees, C&F Agent Commissions, Transportation Costs, and other incidental charges, the same Cargos were delivered at the factory of the petitioner (Annexures-D and D-1). The petitioner sent the blended yarn to third- party experts to test the quality of the yarn and also to check whether the goods were commensurate with the description made in the proforma invoice. After conducting six tests dated 03.09.2023, 07.09.2023, 17.09.2023, 14.09.2023, 21.09.2023, and 23.09.2023 it was found out that all tests yielded negative results i.e., it did not contain the same ingredients as were stipulated in the proforma invoice. Knowing the poor quality of the yarn, the petitioner by writing to respondent No. 3 requested to hold the payment of USD 81,321.41 against LC No. 175923020125 dated 20.07.2023 vide letter dated 01.11.2023. Respondent No. 3 also informed the bank of