BANGLADESH MOKTIJODDAH KALYAN TRUST Vs. KAMAL TRADING AGENCY
LAWS(BANG)-1997-11-1
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Decided on November 06,1997

Bangladesh Moktijoddah Kalyan Trust Appellant
VERSUS
Kamal Trading Agency Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.T.M.AFZAL,CJ. - (1.) This appeal, by leave, at the instance of the defendant arises out of a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of the suit property, Title Suit No. 34 of 1991 of the (new) Court of Subordinate Judge, Narayanganj and the moot question for consideration is whether the trail court and the High Court Division in appeal, FA No. 63 of 1992, were right in holding that the defendant had accepted the offer of the plaintiff respondents to purchase the disputed property to make it a binding contract. The suit was decreed which was affirmed in appeal on the concurrent finding that the offer was accepted. The defendant contends that the finding was wrong both on fact and law, leave was granted to consider the said contention. Plaintiffs case, briefly, is that, the schedule property comprising land and building being holding Nos. 9 and 10 Old Bank Road, and 13 of B Das Road, Narayanganj comprising 61.75 Kathas of land originally belonged to Hardeo Glass, Aluminium, Enamel and Silicate Works Ltd. Respondent No.2 as proprietor of respondent No. 1 a business/commercial enterprise, took lease of the said premises on 14-6-1971 and set up a Salt Refining and Crushing Factory at a cost of several lacs. After liberation of Bangladesh, management of the said three holding was taken over by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. Subsequently, the Ministry of Industry and Commerce sold the disputed holdings to the appellant, Bangladesh Muktijoddah Kallyan Trust by a Registered Deed dated 10-8-1982 at a token price of Taka 1.00 (one) only. Respondent No.1 attorned as the tenant of the appellant at a monthly rent of Taka 10,000.00.
(2.) Having learnt about the decision of the appellant to sell the suit holdings, respondent No.2 by a letter dated 24-12-1985 informed the appellant that he was willing to purchase the property at the highest market price as the respondents were running a big industry on the suit land and requested the appellant to determine the highest market price. After long negotiation by a letter dated 31-5-1986 the appellant requested respondent No.2 only to submit his offer quoting the highest market price along with 2% earnest money by 3-6-86. Accordingly respondent No.2 determined the highest market price of Taka 1,00,000.00 per Katha and a sum of Taka 5,00,000.00 for the structures making the total amount at Taka 66,15,000.00 which was the highest price at the relevant time. A Bank draft for Taka 1,33,500.00 being 2% of the total consideration amount was sent with the offer made by letter dated 3-6-86.
(3.) The appellant received the offer and encashed the Bank draft on 5-6-1986. Subsequently, verbal assurance was given to respondent No.2 to execute and register the sale deed as early as possible. Respondent No.1 being in possession of the suit property had to wait because of such verbal assurance of the officials of the appellant.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.