SS Steel Limited has issued a formal clarification following a cautionary notice by Eastern Bank PLC and a subsequent report published on The Business Standard on 16 March titled “Eastern Bank seizes SS Steel chairman’s Banani house over Tk112cr default in unprecedented move.”
The company stated that the publication has caused “significant concern” among its stakeholders, investors, lenders, and regulators, prompting it to clarify the legal and factual position related to the matter.
According to SS Steel, the sanctioned credit facilities provided by Eastern Bank were secured against specific assets, as outlined in the bank’s sanction letter dated 17 April 2023. These securities include industrial land, buildings, plant and machinery located in Sitakunda, Chattogram, along with floating assets, share liens, and personal guarantees.
However, SS Steel disputes claims that a four-storey residential property in Banani, owned by its chairman Javed Opgenhaffen, is part of the collateral. The company maintains that this property was never pledged to the bank in any capacity.
The clarification further states that, contrary to reports suggesting seizure or auction, no such auction has taken place. The matter is currently under judicial review, with the High Court having issued a stay order on the auction process. As a result, possession of the Banani property remains with its lawful owners.
The dispute stems from an auction notice issued under Section 33(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, in connection with Artha Execution Case No 1106 of 2025 arising from Artha Rin Suit No 2673 of 2024. SS Steel has challenged the notice through a writ petition filed under Article 102 of the Constitution, citing violations of fundamental rights under Articles 31 and 42.
On 30 November 2025, the High Court issued a Rule Nisi asking the respondents to justify why the auction notice should not be declared illegal, while also granting an interim stay on its operation and allowing time for the settlement of dues.
SS Steel emphasised that the legality and enforceability of the auction process remain sub judice, and therefore subject to final judicial verdict. It also reiterated the principle that enforcement of secured loans must remain strictly within the scope of documented collateral.
The company also warned that any attempt to enforce claims beyond sanctioned securities could be considered legally questionable and open to challenge.
The issue also carries broader implications, as Opgenhaffen is a foreign investor with diversified investments across multiple sectors in Bangladesh, including steel manufacturing, industrial cables, ceramics, and banking. The company cautioned that actions involving personal assets that are not explicitly pledged as collateral may impact investor confidence in the country.
About The Author
