IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH (HIGH COURT DIVISION)
Writ Petition No. 2116 of 2012
Decided On: 06.03.2012
Appellants: Meghna Sales and Distribution Company Ltd.
Vs.
Respondent: Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and Ors.
**Hon’ble Judges:**Mirza Hussain Haider and Muhammad Khurshid Alam Sarkar, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A.M. Aminuddin and Farhana Parveen, Advocates
For Respondents/Defendant: Al Amin Sarkar, D.A.G. and Zakir Hossain Ripon, A.A.G.
Subject: Banking
Catch Words
Mentioned IN
**Acts/Rules/Orders:**Constitution Of The People’s Republic Of Bangladesh - Article 102
JUDGMENT
1. By this application filed under Article 102 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged impugned order under Memo No. TCB/IMP-1024/Sugar/2011 dated 22.02.2012 (Annexure-Z-6) passed by Respondent No. 3 requesting Respondent No. 5 to encash the Bank Guarantee to the tune of Tk. 90,84,600/- furnished by the petitioner and transfer the same in favour of the Respondent No. 2. The learned advocate at the time of making submissions drew our attention, to the Agreement executed between the Respondent No. 2(TCB) and the petitioner company on the basis of which, the aforesaid Bank Guarantee for the aforesaid amount was furnished.
-
Having gone through the agreement it appears that Clause-14 of the said agreement provides arbitration clause and pursuant to the said arbitration clause, which refers to settlement of any dispute between the parties, we are of the view that alternative remedy, by way of arbitration is available to the petitioner. Thus the Petitioner having alternative remedy incorporated in the agreement should have availed the said remedy instead of moving this Court. Hence, we find that instead of issuing Rule, if the petitioner is given an opportunity to avail the alternative forum of arbitration for settling the dispute within a specific time and if the operation of the order challenged herein as to encashment of the Bank Guarantee is stayed for a specific period, justice would be met.
-
Thus, no Rule is called for. The Petitioner is directed to avail the alternative form of the arbitration as contemplated in Clause 14 of the agreement dated 26.06.2011 and initiate the arbitration proceeding at once and conclude the same within 3(three) months from date and till then the operation of the impugned order for encashment of the bank guarantee dated 22.2.2012 (Annexure-Z-6) is stayed.
-
With these observations and directions, this application under Article 102 of the Constitution is disposed of without any order as to cost.
-
Office is directed to communicate the order at once at the cost of the petitioner.