Courts have ordered the seizure of assets from loan defaulters, yet illegal occupants remain on the properties. Courts have issued summons, but police have failed to arrest the accused. In other instances, once a writ petition is dismissed, the petitioner files a fresh one in a different court. There is an instance where as many as 44 writs filed against a judgment of a single case.
Such observations emerged yesterday, Thursday, during a meeting at the Secretariat with the Financial Institutions Division (FID) of the Ministry of Finance on expediting the disposal of 100 pending cases involving 11 banks, financial institutions, and regulators. The meeting was chaired by FID Secretary Nazma Mobarek, according to meeting sources.
Senior officials from Sonali, Agrani, Janata, Rupali, BDBL, BASIC Bank, the state-owned general insurance corporation, Bangladesh Krishi Bank (BKB), Rajshahi Krishi Unnayan Bank (RAKUB), the Investment Corporation of Bangladesh (ICB), and the Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission (BSEC) were present.
Sources said cases involving banks typically include writs, loan recovery suits, certificate cases, and bankruptcy or other litigation. Among them, the number of certificate cases are the highest, already exceeding 150,000. However these cases involve the smallest amounts. By contrast, the 100 highlighted cases of the 11 institutions involve a total of Tk 376.03 billion, including defaulted loans, fines, and in some cases claims by clients against the institutions.
The meeting resolved that the FID will seek cooperation from the Ministry of Home Affairs, divisional commissioners, the Attorney General, deputy commissioners, and sub-registry offices to speed up case resolution. Each institution will appoint a focal point and maintain constant monitoring. Managing directors and heads of institutions will meet monthly and report updated progress to the FID.
When the issue of land registration and possession cases in the deputy commissioner’s court was raised, Sonali Bank informed the meeting it had already filed several such cases.
In one example, 44 writ petitions were filed against a single judgment of which 43 have been dismissed, with only one pending. The meeting urged BSEC and all institutions to ensure notices are sent to clients’ correct addresses, preventing claims later that letters were not received.
Discussion also noted that although cases appear on hearing lists, they are often listed far down, delaying proceedings. Even after judgments in money loan courts, debtors file writs seeking stay orders, sometimes in violation of rules barring multiple writs before a final verdict. As a result, multiple writs are filed against a single judgment.
After yesterday’s meeting, Financial Institutions Division Secretary Nazma Mobarek told Prothom Alo, “Today we sat with all the institutions and discussed the matter. If they pay closer attention, the cases can be resolved much faster. They have been told that on hearing days, it is not enough for only panel lawyers to be present—representatives from the institutions themselves must also attend.”
Breakdown by institution
The 100 pending cases together amount to Tk 376.03 billion. Of this, Janata Bank alone accounts for Tk 151.51 billion across 10 cases. Janata Bank MD Mojibur Rahman, who attended the meeting, said, “We have received some directives and will now act accordingly.”
Sonali Bank is tied to Tk 56.7 billion across 10 cases, while Agrani Bank’s exposure is Tk 39.8 billion and Rupali Bank’s Tk 37.48 billion, each also across 10 cases. BASIC Bank is involved in Tk 24 billion, and Bangladesh Krishi Bank (BKB) in Tk 15.75 billion, also in 10 cases each.
Bangladesh Development Bank PLC (BDBL) has Tk 8.76 billion across 10 cases, ICB has Tk 8.6 billion across 8 cases, and RAKUB’s 10 cases involve Tk 2.94 billion. The BSEC has Tk 840 million tied to 2 cases.
The Financial Institutions Division’s tally also lists Tk 32.54 billion under the state-owned Sadharan Bima Corporation. But its MD, Harun-or-Rashid, told Prothom Alo, “In reality, the amount linked to us is very small. One client company filed a defamation case to recover dues from another bank, and we were listed as the 11th defendant.”