The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the High Court (HC) order appointing a receiver to Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd while the apex court upheld the HC directive requiring receivership for other companies within the Beximco Group.
However, the apex court asked the authorities concerned to maintain the High Court directive regarding the appointment of a receiver to oversee the operations of the group's other entities.
Three-member bench of the Appellate Division led by Justice Md Ashfaqul Islam passed the order after disposing of an appeal filed by the Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd challenging the High Court order.
It also ordered the High Court to dispose of the rule issued in this regard within two weeks.
During the hearing, Advocate Mustafizur Rahman Khan, counsel for Beximco Pharma, argued that receivership could destabilise the pharmaceutical sector, jeopardise consumer interests, and adversely impact the company's 86 per cent public shareholders, given Salman Rahman's minor 4 per cent stake.
The Appellate Division's decision allows Beximco Pharmaceuticals to continue its operations without disruption, underscoring the court's consideration of industry stability and shareholder impact.
On September 5, the High Court directed Bangladesh Bank to attach all the properties of Beximco Group and appoint a receiver for six months to manage them.
The directive sought to secure the group's properties, repatriate funds allegedly moved abroad, and recover money Salman reportedly obtained from various banks. The central bank was instructed to report on its compliance within four weeks.
The order came up following a public interest litigation filed by Supreme Court lawyer Masood R Sobhan, aiming to safeguard the group's financial integrity and prevent capital outflows.
Later, on behalf of the Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd. a leave to appeal plea was made with the Appellate Division seeking a stay order on the High Court verdict to appoint a "receiver" to conduct the functions of the Beximco Group of Companies.
The plea was heard at the Chamber Court on October 1. But the court sent the matter to the regular bench of the Appellate Division that day.
