IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) Writ Petition No.

9145 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF Anudip Services Limited. Represented Director, by its Managing

Md. Shafiqur Rahman Khan son of Late

Al-haj Mahbubur Rahman Khan, 165, Mirpur Road, Kalabagan, Dhaka-1205.

............Petitioner VERSUS Artharin Adalat No. 2 Dhaka and Others . Respondents AFFIDAVIT-IN-OPPOSITION RESPONDENT NO. 2 ON BEHALF OF

-2I, Farhana Yeshmin, wife of Mohammed Zahidul Hoque, Manager of Fareast Finance and Investment

Limited, Head Office-former address:- Printers Building (9th level) 5, Rajuk Avenue, Motijheel Commercial Area, Dhaka- 1000 and present address:-Eunoos Centre (8 th level), 52-53, Dilkusha Commercial Area, Dhaka, aged about 30 years, by faith a Muslim, by occupation service holder and by Nationality a Bangladeshi by birth, do hereby Solemnly affirm and state as follows; 1. That I am the Manager of the respondent No. 2 and have been authorized by the Managing Director of the respondent No. 2 to inter alia swear affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 2 in the instant writ petition. I have gone through the said writ petition as such I am acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the said writ petition and competent to swear this affidavit.

-3That the original Letter of

Authority is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-I.

2. That I have gone through the same and understood the contents thereof and I have been advised to controvert only those statements of the Writ Petition which are necessary
for the purpose of effective and proper disposal of the Rule and those statements which have not been specifically admitted herein shall be deemed to have been denied by the Respondent No.2.

3. That the statements made in paragraph 1 except the words carrying out business with
goodwill and reputation since its inception are matters of record as such need no

comment thereon.

4. That the

statements made in paragraph no. 2 except the words the relationship

between the petitioner company and the respondent No. 2 directly and indirectly has been

-4-

linked with the taxi cab service business are matters of record as such need no comment

thereon.

5. That the statements made in paragraph no. 3 except the words During this time, the
respondent No.2 extended Lease Finance Facility to the petitioner company under which

the petitioner was granted a lease of several taxi cabs at the monthly rent for a specific

period of time. are matters of record as such need no comment thereon. That it is

submitted that the real fact is that the instant writ petition arising out of Arhta Rin Suit

no. 86/11 is for recovering the liability amount for Tk.50,33,554 against the term

finance facility for Tk.4,098,993 granted by the respondent no. 2 under agreement no.

2003-02-011-055 to expand the petitioners household durable business which is totally

different from taxi cab business.

6. That the statements made in paragraph Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 &11 stating that subsequently the taxi cab sector suffered a tremendous blow due to the governments fault. The petitioner company along with all other competitors in the industry suffered a huge financial loss which brought the business of the petitioner company to

-5almost a stand still. As a result, the petitioner company defaulted in making regular payment of rent. That under the circumstances some business entities carrying out business in the taxi cab sector, being sufferers and having undergone huge financial losses, made

representation before BRTA. That on 17.07.08 BRTA sent a recommendation to the Ministry of

Communication recommending amongst others to treat the said sector as a sick sector and thereby to get relief in the form of waiver of interest from the outstanding bank liabilities. The Ministry of Communication, on receipt of the letter from BRTA, on 22.09.08 recommended for considering the problems regarding the discipline of the Taxi Cab Sector stating the facts in details. That on 11.01.2009 an inter-ministerial meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the Additional Secretary of the Ministry of Communication wherein the particular issue of taxi cab sector was considered and it was decided that the taxi cab sector may be

-6treated as a sick sector thereby to get the benefit of waiver of interest. That the aforesaid decision was communicated to the Ministry of Trade and Commerce and Ministry of Finance by a letters dated 16.02.2009 and to Bangladesh Bank, being respondent no. 3, by letter dated 17.03.09 stating amongst others that this sector is entitled to get the benefits as recommended. That on receipt of the said letter the Bangladesh Bank issued a memo on 30.06.3009 refusing to treat the taxi cab sector as a sick sector. Following that, the Ministry of Communication reverted its position and passed a memo on 12.07.2009 refusing to consider the proposal treating the Taxi Cab Sector as sick sector. That challenging the said Ministry memo dated 12.07.2009 and the Bangladesh Bank Memo dated 30.06.2009 a handful of similar organizations carrying out business in the taxi cab sector filed Writ Petition no. 222 of 2010 and by order dated 11.01.10, a Division Bench of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court

-7of Bangladesh was pleased to issue a Rule calling upon the respondents in Writ Petition no. 222 of 2010 to show cause as to why the memo dated 12.07.2009 refusing to consider the proposal treating the Taxi Cab Sector as sick sector instead of sick industries and letter under memo dated 30.06.09 refusing the proposal given as sick sector instead of sick industries should not be declared to have been done without lawful authority and are of no legal effect and/or such other or further order or orders passed as the court may deem fit and proper. That the Writ Petition no. 222 of 2010 is still pending before the Honble High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh are irrelevant and not at all known to the deponent nor the same has had any relationship with the term Finance made by the deponent company to the petitioner and as such those are emphatically denied by this deponent.
7. That the statements made in paragraph No. 12 except the words without taking all that into account are
matters

-8-

of record as such need no comment thereon.

8. That the statements made in paragraph No. 13 are

record as such need no comment thereon.

matters of

9. That

the statements made in

paragraph No. 14 are matter of

record as such need no comment. 10. That the statements made in paragraph No. 15, 16, 17 and 18 are misleading, incorrect and misinterpretation of facts as such denied. 11. That the statements made in paragraph No. 19 are misleading, incorrect and misinterpretation of facts except the words the respondent no. 1 court is perfectly capable of being a judge of facts as such denied.

12.

That the grounds in support of the Writ Petition are not valid grounds and thus not sustainable having no basis at all.

13.

That it is submitted that the petitioners application for

-9-

appointment of independence auditor to determine the correctness of computation of

the respondents claim is specifically for lingering the procedure of t h e C o u r t a s

t h i s c o m p u t a t i o n i s c o m p l e t e l y d e p e n d e d o n documents which were already

submitted by the respondents No. 2 to the court and calculation will be verified as per

provision of the Artha Rin Adalat Act, 2003. Beside this the petitioner has scope to

prove the respondents claim unduly inflated through cross-examination. Moreover

there is no scope to appoint independent auditor under the Artha Rin Adalat Act, 2003.

14. That it is also submitted that respondent no. 2 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1994 (as amended), licensed by Bangladesh Bank and is doing its business under the provisions of the Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and as a financial institution, all accounts of all clients of the respondent no. 2 are audited by the auditor appointed under section 24 of the Financial Institution Act, 1993 which states as follows:

1) Kvvbx AvBb hvnv wKQzB _vKzK bv Kb,

c&ZK Avw_K c&wZvb evwlK wfwZ

evsjv`k evsKi Abygv`b mvc GKRb wbixK

-10-

wbqvM Kwie |

2) Kvb Avw_K c&wZvb wbixK wbqvM

Amg_ ev evsjv`k evsKi

weePbvq hw` Dcaviv (1) Gi Aaxb wbhy wbixKi mv_ Aci GKRb wbixKi KvR

c&qvRb _vK mG evsjv`k evsK D Avw_K

c&wZvbi Rb GKRb wbixK wbqvM KwiZ cvwie Ges ZvnvK c&`q cvwiZvwlKI evsjv`k evsK wbaviY Kwiqv w`e |

3) h ermii Rb wbixK wbhy nBeb mB ermii wnmve wbixv mb Kiv Ges

ZrwfwZ c&wZe`b Zix KivB nBe GB avivi Aaxb wbhy wbixKi `vwqZ | 15. That from the facts stated above it is evident that the

petitioner is trying to delay the procedure of the court and passing of the decree and thus trying to delay the recovery of huge amount of money which they availed

-11as loan from the respondent no. 2. In this connection it is submitted that the said money is the depositors money and the petitioner is trying to embezzle the said money. 16. That the grounds as have been taken by the

petitioner are not maintainable in law and facts and therefore the Rule as has been issued is liable to be discharged and the order of stay be also vacated. 17. That the statements made in this Affidavit- in-

Opposition are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Prepared in my office

______________ Advocate Solemnly affirmed before me this the day of

______________ Deponent The deponent is known to me and identified by

-12___________ at A.M. me

____________ Advocate COMMISSIONER OF AFFIDAVITS SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION, DHAKA