Bangladesh

Jurisdictional ambiguity, statutory silences and the urgent need for clarity in Bangladesh's commercial dispute resolution framework. Author: Rifat Rahman, Senior Associate and Lead of Cross Border Disputes, Mahbub & Company Background and Context On 28.10.2026, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh passed an order issuing a Rule and staying the operation of an order by Commercial Court No. 1, Dhaka, which had appointed the Chairman of an arbitral tribunal. The appointment arose from a high-value partnership dispute in the ready-made garments sector. The revisional challenge raises one of the earliest and most consequential questions under the Commercial Court Act, 2026: does the Commercial Court’s jurisdiction over commercial disputes extend to a statutory appointment power that the Arbitration Act, 2001 expressly confers upon the District Judge? The Rule and stay are interim measures, not a final determination. Nevertheless, the proceedings expose a drafting problem with practical consequences: a jurisdictionally defective appointment may affect the arbitral tribunal at its foundation. Identifying the Legal and Regulatory Gap Section 2(d)(22) of the Commercial Court Act treats arbitration agreements, arbitrations, arbitral proceedings and arbitral awards under the Arbitration Act as commercial disputes. Section 3(3) further provides that a Commercial Court judge may be appointed from among District Judges or Additional District Judges. However, the Act does not expressly amend section 12 of the Arbitration Act, define the Commercial Court as the appointing authority, or state that every arbitration-related function under the Arbitration Act automatically stands transferred to the Commercial Court. The omission is significant because the Arbitration Act distinguishes between “Court” and “District Judge”. Section 2(b) defines “Court” as the District Judge’s Court, including an Additional District Judge’s Court appointed by Gazette notification to discharge functions under the Act. Section 12, by contrast, repeatedly names the District Judge as the domestic appointing authority. A broad classification of arbitration matters cannot, without clearer language, silently replace that distinction. Legal Analysis The argument for exclusive exercise by the District Judge is strongest when section 12 is read as a whole. Under section 12(3)(a)(i), where parties to a domestic arbitration fail to agree on a sole arbitrator within thirty days, the District Judge appoints that sole arbitrator. Under sections 12(4)(b) and 12(4)(c), where party-appointed arbitrators fail to agree on the third arbitrator, the District Judge makes the appointment; that appointee becomes Chairman under section 12(5). Section 12(7)(d) again directs an application to the District Judge where an agreed appointment procedure fails. Section 12(9) requires the District Judge to consider the contractual qualifications, independence and impartiality of the proposed appointee, while section 12(12) makes the appointment decision final. The question is therefore not confined to appointment of a tribunal chair. If a Commercial Court may assume section 12 jurisdiction merely because the dispute is commercial, the same reasoning would allow it to appoint a sole arbitrator. Yet section 12 reserves both functions to the District Judge. Its repeated use of that office alongside separate references to “Court”, the Chief Justice and a nominated Supreme Court judge indicates a deliberate allocation of authority. Section 3(15) of the General Clauses Act defines “District Judge” as the judge of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, while section 3 of the Civil Courts Act recognises the District Judge’s Court and Additional District Judge’s Court as separate classes. Section 3(3) of the Commercial Court Act also identifies the two offices separately. Appointment to a Commercial Court, or merely holding current charge, does not by itself make an Additional District Judge the District Judge contemplated by section 12. Section 8(2) of the Civil Courts Act permits an Additional District Judge to discharge functions assigned by the District Judge, while section 24 CPC permits transfer to a subordinate court competent to dispose of the proceeding. These provisions regulate assignment and transfer; they do not create substantive competence where a special statute reserves a function to a particular authority. Section 24 itself requires competence. Any departure from personal exercise by the District Judge therefore requires an express statutory or Gazette-based source of authority consistent with section 2(b), not jurisdiction inferred solely from the dispute’s commercial character. Proposed Reforms and Recommendations The two statutes should be harmonised by express amendment. The Commercial Court Act should identify which arbitration applications fall within Commercial Court jurisdiction and should distinguish ordinary applications to the “Court” from appointments reserved by section 12 to the District Judge. If policy favours specialist Commercial Courts making appointments, section 12 should be amended directly to confer that power on a duly designated Commercial Court judge, including appointments of sole arbitrators, third arbitrators and chairpersons. The law should also prescribe the notification, assignment or transfer mechanism and clarify the consequences of appointments made without it. Until then, section 12 should be applied according to its text. Specialisation is desirable, but jurisdiction must precede convenience. A statute intended to accelerate commercial justice should not leave parties litigating over the identity of the judge empowered to constitute the very tribunal chosen to avoid litigation. Lastly, the pending case gives the High Court Division an opportunity to clarify this jurisdictional boundary; its determination remains awaited, but the need for express statutory harmonisation persists. References • Commercial Court Act, 2026, ss. 2(d)(22) and 3(3). • Arbitration Act, 2001, ss. 2(b), 12(3)-(12). • General Clauses Act, 1897, s. 3(15). • Civil Courts Act, 1887, ss. 3 and 8(2). • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, s. 24.

Bangladesh's trademark regime provides a structured framework for the acquisition, prosecution, maintenance and transfer of trademark rights. For domestic and international businesses seeking protection in Bangladesh, the process involves considerably more than filing an application. Questions of proprietorship, distinctiveness, classification, existing or proposed use, authorization, Registry procedure, publication, opposition, renewal, assignment and licensing may all arise during the lifecycle of a trademark. The principal legislation governing trademark protection is the Trademarks Act, 2009, read together with the Trademarks Rules, 2015. These instruments establish the principal legal and procedural framework for trademark registration in Bangladesh. In practice, the operation of the system also requires careful attention to procedural time limits and Registry practice, particularly when responding to office actions, seeking extensions, dealing with opposition proceedings and maintaining registrations after they have been obtained. This article examines the current legal framework and procedure for trademark registration in Bangladesh, together with the principal requirements relevant to prosecution, opposition, appeal, renewal, assignment and licensing. The Current Trademark Legal Framework in BangladeshThe principal legislation governing trademarks in Bangladesh is: the Trademarks Act, 2009; and the Trademarks Rules, 2015. Bangladesh's broader intellectual property framework also includes: the Geographical Indication Act, 2013; the Geographical Indication Rules, 2015; the Plant Varieties Protection Act, 2019 (No. 6 of 2019 Law); and the Intellectual Property Enforcement (Import and Export) Rules, 2019. For trademark registration, prosecution and the subsequent administration of trademark rights, however, the Trademarks Act, 2009 and the Trademarks Rules, 2015 provide the central legal framework. Who May Apply for Trademark Registration in Bangladesh?Any person claiming to be the proprietor of a trademark may apply for registration where the trademark is: already in use in Bangladesh; or proposed to be used in Bangladesh. Accordingly, actual use is not a prerequisite to filing in every case. An applicant may seek registration for a trademark intended for future use in Bangladesh. The application should accurately identify the relevant basis upon which the mark is being used or is proposed to be used. Registrable Marks and the Requirement of DistinctivenessA range of signs may be registered as trademarks within the Bangladesh framework. These include: a name represented in a distinctive manner; the name of an individual or firm represented distinctively; a signature; a photograph; one or more invented words; one or more words having no direct reference to the character or quality of the relevant goods; a mark distinctive of the goods to which it is to be applied; letters; numerals; and combinations of letters and numerals. Distinctiveness is therefore an important feature of the registration framework. The mark should be capable of distinguishing the relevant goods or services. The distinctive character of a proposed trademark should accordingly be considered at an early stage when preparing an application. Trademark Classification in BangladeshBangladesh follows the international classification of goods and services under the Nice Classification. The classification system extends from Class 1 to Class 45. An applicant must therefore identify: the goods or services for which registration is sought; and the appropriate class or classes under the Nice Classification. Classification is an important part of preparing a trademark application because the protection sought is connected to the particular goods or services specified in the application. Information Required for Filing a Trademark ApplicationA trademark application should contain complete and accurate information regarding the applicant and the protection sought. The principal information required includes: the applicant's full name; the applicant's full street address; the applicant's nationality; whether the applicant is a manufacturer, merchant, provider of services or otherwise; the goods or services for which the mark is to be registered; the applicant's status, including whether the applicant is a manufacturer, merchant or service provider; and information concerning the existing or proposed use of the trademark. The application should correctly identify the individual or entity claiming proprietorship of the mark. Use and Proposed Use of the TrademarkThe application should specify the basis upon which the trademark is being, or is intended to be, used in Bangladesh. The trademark may be: being used in Bangladesh by the proprietor; proposed to be used in Bangladesh by the proprietor; proposed to be used in Bangladesh by a body corporate to be constituted; or proposed to be used in Bangladesh by a registered user. Where the trademark is proposed to be used by a registered user, an application for registration of that registered user must be filed simultaneously. The intended structure of use can therefore be relevant at the filing stage itself. Representation of the TrademarkA representation of the trademark is required for preparation of the application. An electronic copy of the trademark may be provided. The representation should correspond accurately with the trademark for which registration is sought. Authorization in Form TM-10Where a trademark application is filed through a representative, an Authorization in Form TM-10 is required. The execution requirements depend upon whether the applicant is an individual or a company. Individual Applicant Where the applicant is an individual, Form TM-10 should be signed by the applicant. Corporate Applicant Where the applicant is a company, the authorization should be signed by an officer of the applicant company. The officer's position within the company should be stated, and the corporate seal should also be included. Notarization and Legalization Form TM-10 does not require notarization. It also does not require legalization. A scanned copy of the executed authorization should be provided when filing instructions are given. Where an application is to be filed through a representative, the filing cannot be completed through that representative without the required authorization. The Trademark Registration Procedure in BangladeshThe precise course of an application will depend on its circumstances, but the principal stages of the trademark registration process can be understood as follows. Preparation of the Application The applicant must identify the proprietor, the trademark, the relevant goods or services, the appropriate class or classes and the relevant basis of use or proposed use. Where the application is filed through a representative, the required Form TM-10 authorization must also be provided. Where use through a registered user is proposed, the corresponding application for registration of that registered user must be filed simultaneously. Filing and Prosecution Once the filing requirements have been satisfied, the application proceeds through trademark prosecution. If the Registry raises an objection or issues an office action, the applicant must respond within the relevant period or seek an extension where available. Procedural deadlines should be monitored carefully throughout prosecution. Acceptance and Publication Every application accepted by the Registrar is published in the Trade Marks Journal. The publication may contain: limitations; disclaimers; and other applicable conditions. Publication is a significant stage in the registration process because it opens the application to possible opposition by third parties. Procedural Time Limits and Registry PracticeTrademark prosecution in Bangladesh requires careful attention to procedural deadlines. Applications are required to be completed within 12 months. An application for an extension of time may be made in the prescribed manner in order to keep the application alive. The period for responding to the main office action is three months. For subsequent actions, the Registrar usually fixes a period of 30 days for reply. Reasonable extensions of time are available. As a matter of Registry practice, extensions may in some circumstances continue for a considerably longer period, potentially up to approximately two years, where applications for extension are regularly made. Applications are also rarely treated as abandoned by the Registrar without first issuing a final notice. These latter points should be understood as matters of Registry practice and not as substitutes for the applicable statutory or officially fixed deadlines. Each deadline should therefore be monitored independently. Publication in the Trade Marks JournalAcceptance of an application by the Registrar does not bring the registration procedure to an immediate conclusion. Every accepted application is published in the Trade Marks Journal, together with any applicable limitations, disclaimers or other conditions. Advertisement performs an important procedural function because it gives third parties an opportunity to challenge the accepted application through opposition proceedings. The publication stage therefore represents the point at which an application that has progressed through prosecution becomes open to formal third-party challenge. Trademark Opposition in BangladeshAn opposition may be lodged within 60 days from the date of advertisement of the application in the Trade Marks Journal. The opposition must state the grounds upon which it is based. Once an opposition has been filed, the applicant may: file a counterstatement; and submit evidence by affidavit. The Registrar will render a final decision after hearing the parties. Opposition proceedings can therefore become a substantive contested stage in the trademark registration process. For applicants, publication in the Trade Marks Journal should consequently be treated as a significant procedural milestone rather than merely an administrative formality. Appeals to the High CourtDecisions of the Registrar concerning: rejection of a trademark; and opposition proceedings may be appealed to the High Court within three months of the decision. An appeal to the High Court is available to an applicant or respondent following an adverse decision in opposition proceedings. The three-month appeal period should therefore be considered promptly following a relevant adverse decision of the Registrar. Duration and Renewal of Trademark RightsTrademark protection must continue to be managed after registration. A trademark is registered for an initial period of seven years from the date of application. Thereafter, the registration may be renewed for successive periods of 10 years in accordance with Section 22(1) and (2) of the Trademarks Act, 2009. Trademark Renewal RequirementsRenewal fees must be paid at least three months before the expiry of the registration under clause 36 of the Trademarks Rules, 2015. Where registration of a trademark remains pending seven years after the filing of the application, registration and renewal fees must be paid simultaneously. Late Renewal Late renewal is available, normally for a period of up to four months after expiry, subject to payment of the applicable late fees. Extensions may also be granted at the direction of the Registrar upon payment of additional fees. The availability of extensions should not, however, be treated as a substitute for monitoring the applicable renewal deadline. Documents Required for Renewal The documentation required for renewal includes an Authorization of Agent in Form TM-10, executed by signature and seal in the prescribed manner. Assignment and Recordal of Trademark RightsA transfer of trademark ownership should be recorded with the relevant authority. Assignment of Registered Trademarks Registered trademarks may be assigned: with the goodwill of the business; or without the goodwill of the business. Where a registered mark is assigned without goodwill, the Registrar's directions should be sought within six months from execution of the assignment. Assignment of Unregistered Trademarks An unregistered trademark should ordinarily be assigned together with the goodwill of the business. Assignment without goodwill is permitted where: at the time of assignment or transmission, the unregistered mark is used in the same business as a registered trademark; the registered trademark is assigned or transmitted at the same time and to the same person as the unregistered mark; and the unregistered mark relates to goods for which the registered trademark is assigned or transmitted. Assignments Creating Multiple Exclusive Rights Additional care is required where an assignment may create multiple exclusive rights. The Registrar's advice should be sought before execution of an assignment that: creates multiple exclusive rights; or creates multiple exclusive rights in different parts of Bangladesh. Such an assignment may otherwise be invalid. Associated and Certification Marks Associated trademarks may be assigned only as a whole. Assignment of a certification mark requires government approval. Documents Required for Assignment The documents required for recordal of an assignment include: a legalized Deed of Assignment; and a power of attorney from the assignee. Recordal should therefore be considered as part of the transaction whenever ownership of trademark rights changes. Licensing and Registered UseTrademark licences must be recorded with the relevant authority in order to be effective. An application for recordal should be made within one year of the date of the document or its effective date, whichever is earlier. Documents Required for Licence Recordal The documentation required includes: a legalized licence deed; a power of attorney from the registered proprietor; a power of attorney from the proposed licensee; and an affidavit from the registered proprietor. Trademark licensing therefore involves not only the contractual relationship between the proprietor and licensee but also the applicable recordal requirements. Practical Considerations When Preparing a Trademark ApplicationBefore filing a trademark application in Bangladesh, an applicant should generally be prepared to provide: the full name of the applicant; the applicant's full street address; nationality; the applicant's status as manufacturer, merchant, service provider or otherwise; a clear representation of the trademark; details of the goods or services for which registration is required; the appropriate Nice Classification class or classes; information concerning existing or proposed use; details of any proposed use through a registered user; and an executed Form TM-10 where a representative is instructed. Where the applicant is a company, particular care should be taken to ensure that the TM-10 identifies the position of the signing officer and includes the corporate seal. Key Procedural DeadlinesA number of time limits are particularly important when managing trademark rights in Bangladesh. A trademark application is required to be completed within 12 months, although an extension may be sought in the prescribed manner to keep the application alive. The period for responding to the main office action is three months. For subsequent Registry actions, the Registrar usually allows 30 days for reply. An opposition may be filed within 60 days from the date of advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal. A relevant decision of the Registrar concerning rejection of a trademark or opposition proceedings may be appealed to the High Court within three months of the decision. The initial registration period is seven years from the date of application, followed by successive renewal periods of 10 years. Renewal fees should be paid at least three months before expiry. Late renewal is normally available for up to four months after expiry, subject to the applicable late fees. Where a registered trademark is assigned without the goodwill of the business, the Registrar's directions should be sought within six months from execution of the assignment. An application for recordal of a trademark licence should be made within one year of the date of the relevant document or its effective date, whichever is earlier. Where an extension or additional period may be available, applicants should distinguish between prescribed legal deadlines and matters that depend upon Registry practice. Frequently Asked Questions on Bangladesh Trademark Law and ProcedureCan a Trademark Be Filed Before It Is Used in Bangladesh? Yes. A person claiming to be the proprietor may apply for registration where the trademark is either already in use in Bangladesh or proposed to be used. The application should state the relevant basis of use. What Trademark Classification System Does Bangladesh Use? Bangladesh follows the Nice Classification, covering Classes 1 to 45 for goods and services. Applicants should identify the relevant goods or services and the appropriate class or classes when preparing the application. What Is Form TM-10? Form TM-10 is the authorization required where a trademark application is filed through a representative. For an individual applicant, the authorization should be signed by the applicant. For a corporate applicant, it should be signed by an officer of the company, the officer's position should be stated, and the corporate seal should be included. Does Form TM-10 Require Notarization or Legalization? No. Form TM-10 does not require notarization and does not require legalization. A scanned copy of the executed authorization should be provided when filing instructions are given. What Is the Deadline for Responding to a Trademark Office Action? The response period for the main office action is three months. For subsequent actions, the Registrar usually fixes a period of 30 days for reply. Reasonable extensions may be available. When Is a Trademark Application Published? Every application accepted by the Registrar is published in the Trade Marks Journal, together with any applicable limitations, disclaimers or other conditions. How Long Is the Trademark Opposition Period in Bangladesh? An opposition may be lodged within 60 days from the date of advertisement of the application in the Trade Marks Journal. What Happens During Trademark Opposition Proceedings? The opposing party must state the grounds of opposition. The applicant may file a counterstatement and submit evidence by affidavit. The Registrar will render a final decision after hearing the parties. Can an Opposition Decision Be Appealed? Yes. An adverse decision in opposition proceedings may be appealed to the High Court. The applicable appeal period is three months from the decision. How Long Does Trademark Registration Last in Bangladesh? The initial registration period is seven years from the date of application. The registration may subsequently be renewed for successive periods of 10 years. When Must a Trademark Be Renewed? Renewal fees should be paid at least three months before expiry. Late renewal is normally available for up to four months after expiry, subject to payment of the applicable late fees. Can a Registered Trademark Be Assigned? Yes. A registered trademark may be assigned with or without the goodwill of the business, subject to the applicable requirements. Special considerations apply to assignments without goodwill, associated trademarks, certification marks and assignments creating multiple exclusive rights. Must a Trademark Assignment Be Recorded? Yes. Assignments must be recorded with the relevant authority. The required documents include a legalized Deed of Assignment and a power of attorney from the assignee. Must a Trademark Licence Be Recorded? Yes. A trademark licence must be recorded with the relevant authority in order to be effective. The documentation includes a legalized licence deed, powers of attorney from the registered proprietor and proposed licensee, and an affidavit from the registered proprietor. The Continuing Management of Trademark RightsThe legal framework for trademark protection in Bangladesh should not be viewed solely through the initial registration process. At the filing stage, careful attention must be given to proprietorship, distinctiveness, classification, the relevant goods or services, the basis of existing or proposed use and the necessary authorization. During prosecution, Registry actions and procedural deadlines must be monitored. Following acceptance, publication in the Trade Marks Journal introduces the possibility of opposition and, where an adverse decision is issued, a potential appeal to the High Court. Registration itself also creates continuing obligations. Renewal deadlines must be observed, while assignments and licences may require appropriate documentation and recordal with the relevant authority. For businesses managing trademark portfolios in Bangladesh, the legal framework therefore extends across the full lifecycle of the trademark, from the initial application through prosecution and opposition to renewal, transfer and licensed use. ConclusionThe current framework for trademark registration in Bangladesh combines substantive requirements concerning proprietorship, distinctiveness, classification and use with procedural obligations that continue throughout prosecution and beyond registration. The Trademarks Act, 2009 and the Trademarks Rules, 2015 remain the principal legal instruments governing this framework. In practice, however, effective trademark protection also requires close attention to Registry procedures, response periods, extensions, publication in the Trade Marks Journal and opposition proceedings. The legal significance of the framework continues after registration. The initial seven-year registration period, subsequent 10-year renewals and the requirements governing assignments and licences mean that trademark rights require ongoing management throughout their lifecycle. For businesses operating in, or seeking protection in, Bangladesh, the practical importance of the trademark regime therefore lies not only in securing registration, but also in ensuring that rights are properly prosecuted, defended, renewed, transferred and recorded under the applicable legal framework.

Legend World Tank PTE v Multinational Shipping Co. Ltd. and others Arbitration Application No. 30 of 2025, High Court Division, Mr. Md. Toufiq Inam J   §     Executive Summary This judgment addresses whether Bangladeshi courts may grant interim protection under section 7A of the Arbitration Act 2001 in aid of a foreign-seated arbitration. Although the Court considered that the text, purpose and legislative scheme of section 7A support a limited protective jurisdiction over assets in Bangladesh, it held itself bound by the Larger Bench decision in Accom Travels and Tours Ltd v Oman Air SAOC. The application was therefore dismissed as not maintainable. The decision does not alter the prevailing law, but offers a carefully reasoned basis for the Appellate Division to reconsider whether the territorial limits governing supervision of an arbitration should also exclude judicial measures designed only to preserve its effectiveness.   §     Background Facts   Legend World Tank PTE sought interim protection under section 7A of the Arbitration Act 2001 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure over 107 tank containers allegedly retained by its Bangladeshi agent. The relevant agreement provided for arbitration seated in Singapore under the SIAC Rules, and SIAC Arbitration had already been commenced. At the admission stage, the Hon’ble High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh directed disclosure of the containers’ location and restrained their disposal for three months. The central decisive question was whether section 7A allowed that protection to continue when Singapore, rather than Bangladesh, was the juridical seat of the arbitration. The obstacle was Accom Travels and Tours Ltd v Oman Air SAOC, 27 BLC 596. By a majority of 2:1, the Larger Bench had held that, apart from sections 45 to 47, the Arbitration Act does not apply where the seat is outside Bangladesh. On that reasoning, sections 7, 7A and 10 are unavailable, save that section 7A may operate at the stage of enforcing a foreign award. The preliminary objection therefore raised not only statutory interpretation, but also whether a single judge could decline to follow a binding Larger Bench decision whose reasoning he considered doubtful.   §     The Court’s Reasoning   I.              Effect of the Non Obstante Clauses in Sections 7 and 7A of the Arbitration Act, 2001 of Bangladesh   The judgment critically analysed the different opening words of sections 7 and 7A. Section 7 overrides other laws governing judicial proceedings. Section 7A, however, expressly operates notwithstanding section 7 itself. Md. Toufiq Inam J treated that wording as a deliberate exception to the general restriction on judicial intervention. If section 7A were entirely controlled by the territorial and jurisdictional limitations associated with section 7, its opening clause would perform no meaningful work.   This was central to the Court’s criticism of Accom. In its view, the Larger Bench had given dominant weight to section 3 without separately examining the language, legislative history and particular function of section 7A. The result was a territorial reading of the Act that did not sufficiently account for Parliament’s creation of an independent protective power in 2004.   II.            Legislative Intent Behind the Introduction of Section 7A   Section 7A permits interim measures before arbitration, during the proceedings and until enforcement of an award under section 44 or section 45. The reference to section 45 was decisive because that provision concerns recognition and enforcement of foreign awards. The Court reasoned that Parliament could not have referred expressly to foreign award enforcement while intending section 7A to have no operation during the life of an arbitration seated abroad.   The judgment then separated supervisory jurisdiction from supportive jurisdiction. Powers concerning appointment or removal of arbitrators, challenges to jurisdiction and control of the arbitral process ordinarily belong to the courts of the seat. Section 7A performs a different role. It preserves assets, evidence and the existing state of affairs until the tribunal can act or an award can be enforced. An order protecting property in Bangladesh does not regulate the Singapore arbitration or decide the dispute. It protects the practical value of that process.   III.          The Significance of the Preamble of the Act, 2001   The Preamble supported this distinction. The 2001 Act addresses domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration, foreign awards and connected matters. For the Court, this wider legislative design combined limited judicial intervention with judicial assistance where assistance is needed to prevent arbitration from becoming ineffective. Section 7A was therefore read as a provision supporting arbitration, not supervising it.   That interpretation also sat within the competing authorities. Crown Maritime Co. Ltd v Royal Boskalis Westminster NV, 16 BLC 140, had recognised section 7A protection for assets in Bangladesh in aid of an arbitration seated abroad. The restrictive line, represented by STX Corporation Ltd v Meghna Group of Industries Ltd, 64 DLR (2012) 550, treated section 3 as excluding interim relief where the seat lay outside Bangladesh. The present judgment regarded the supportive character of section 7A as the feature that the restrictive approach had not adequately addressed.   IV.          Whether Section 3 Excludes the Operation of Section 7A   Section 3 undoubtedly lays down the Act’s general territorial application. The Court nevertheless held that it should not be read in isolation or in a manner that defeats a later and more specific provision. Its preferred reconciliation was that section 3 defines the general reach of the Act, while section 7A creates a limited protective jurisdiction over persons and property in Bangladesh. The seat determines supervision of the arbitration, but does not necessarily exclude assistance designed only to preserve its efficacy.   V.            The View in Accom and the Overlooked Binding Decision   The deeper difficulty with Accom arose from Mosharaf Composite Textile Mills Ltd v ECOM Agroindustrial Corp Ltd, 4 SCOB (2015) AD 28. In ECOM, the Appellate Division upheld a stay of Bangladeshi proceedings so that arbitration pending in Liverpool could continue. In the review judgment dated 11 July 2017, the Appellate Division expressly stated that Unicol Bangladesh Ltd v Maxwell Engineering Works Ltd, 56 DLR (AD) 166, stood pro tanto overruled insofar as it treated section 10 as unavailable to an arbitration seated abroad.   Yet Accom, decided in 2021, relied substantially on Unicol and the restrictive line flowing from it without considering either ECOM judgment. Mr. Md. Toufiq Inam J considered this omission to have materially weakened the jurisprudential foundation of Accom, especially on section 10. ECOM showed that a foreign seat does not, by itself, exclude every form of judicial assistance under the Act. That same distinction between control and assistance was directly relevant to section 7A.   VI.          Applicability of Section 151 CPC in Place of Section 10   The Court identified a further inconsistency in Accom. Having held section 10 unavailable, the Larger Bench nevertheless stayed the Bangladeshi proceedings under the Court’s inherent power in section 151 CPC. In substance, it granted through the general law the relief that it had found unavailable under the special statute.   For the Court, inherent power supplements the law where no specific mechanism exists. It should not ordinarily be used to circumvent, enlarge or recreate a remedy that Parliament has specifically addressed. If section 3 truly prohibited a stay under section 10, the same territorial restriction could not coherently be avoided through section 151. Conversely, once ECOM recognised section 10 as applicable, resort to inherent jurisdiction became unnecessary.   VII.        Development in the Italian Thai Case   In Italian Thai Development Public Company Limited v The Export Import Bank of India, Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1828 of 2024, the High Court Division had dismissed a section 7A application because the arbitration was seated in Singapore. It was that restrictive High Court Division approach, not the Appellate Division’s decision, which the present judgment treated as unresolved and open to reconsideration.   The Appellate Division continued protection until the first sitting of the Singapore tribunal and later disposed of the matter as infructuous after the tribunal assumed jurisdiction under section 7A(6). It consciously refrained from deciding whether the High Court Division’s interpretation of section 7A was correct. The present Court therefore regarded the availability of section 7A for arbitration seated abroad as still awaiting an authoritative and reasoned determination by the Appellate Division.   Having appeared as an assisting counsel for one of the parties in the Italian Thai proceedings, I had been particularly keen to obtain the Appellate Division’s authoritative guidance on these important questions of principle. However, because the arbitral tribunal was constituted and assumed jurisdiction before the appeal could be finally determined, the matter became infructuous and the Court did not have occasion to pronounce upon the correctness of the High Court Division’s restrictive interpretation of section 7A. The underlying jurisdictional issue therefore remained unresolved and a golden opportunity was missed.   VIII.     Binding Effect of the Larger Bench Decision and Order   Despite its preferred construction, the Court followed Accom. Mr. Md. Toufiq Inam J held that stare decisis serves certainty, consistency and judicial discipline, not merely the preservation of reasoning that every later judge considers correct. A single judge could not disregard a majority decision of a Larger Bench because it had overlooked ECOM or because its statutory analysis appeared unpersuasive. The authority of reconsideration belonged to the Appellate Division or a Bench of equal or greater strength. The application was therefore dismissed on ground of maintainability without examination of the merits and without prejudice to any remedy before the tribunal or another competent forum. The earlier interim protection was recalled and vacated, with no order as to costs.   §     Conclusion   The judgment’s importance lies in the distance between its reasoning and its result. It presents a structured statutory case for allowing Bangladeshi courts to preserve local assets in support of arbitration seated abroad, yet refuses to convert that reasoning into relief because horizontal precedent required obedience to Accom. It therefore neither changes the binding rule nor closes the debate. Instead, it identifies with unusual clarity the question now requiring authoritative resolution: whether the territorial principle governing supervision should also prevent the courts of Bangladesh from giving limited protection to property within their own jurisdiction. Author: Rifat Rahman, Senior Associate, Mahbub & Company