The Bank Companies Act, 1991 (Act No. XIV of 1991) Section 44 read with Section 45(C)

Mere inaction of a functionary of the state or of a local authority is not open to challenge under writ jurisdiction, unless it comes within the scope of article 102 of the constitution. No relief has been sought against Bangladesh Bank in respect of its inaction and a direction has been sought, instead, against a private bank not to proceed against the petitioner - company. This writ petition is directed in disguise against a private bank. It is well settled that a private bank does not fall within the definition of a person or authority under article 102 of the constitution…………………………… (para 7 & 9)

The Constitution of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh, 1972, Article 102.

Whether the cheques were altered or dishonour of the same constitutes any offence against the petitioners and the claim raised in the notice is correct there are all questions of facts to be determined by a competent court in due course of trail, if the notice giver bank goes for legal action. But at this stage its access of justice cannot be denied by gagging the legal notice…………….( para 8)  

The Bank Companies Act, 1991 (Act No. 14 of 1991), Section 5 (Ga Ga) and 27 (Ka Ka)

The petitioners were/are not shown as defaulting borrowers in the CIB report and are only shown as guarantors for the loan obtained by the respondent No.5. There is no scope to treat them as defaulting borrowers and loan can not be refused to the petitioners by the banks on the ground that they are defaulting borrowers though it may be refused due to some other valid reasons.