BullBD Old Apps Site
Home
Favorites
Recently viewed Details Chart Today news Share news Top gainer Top Looser Upcoming events
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 All
Bank Cement Ceramics Sector Corporate Bond Engineering Financial Institutions Food & Allied Fuel & Power IT Sector Insurance Jute Life Insurance Miscellaneous Mutual Funds Paper & Printing Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Services & Real Estate Tannery Industries Telecommunication Textile Travel & Leisure All
  • Details
  • Chart
  • News

GP

All Eps Dividend Board Agm Q1 Q2 Q3

GP 03-Feb-2020

(Continuation news of GP): to participate in arbitration on the current audit demand. The letter remains unanswered. On 26 August, 2019, Grameenphone filed a Title Suit against the Audit Demand, and on 28 August, 2019 Grameenphone moved an application for injunction in the learned District Court with the prayer to stay the suspension of NOCs and to restrain BTRC from taking any steps based on, or pursuant to, or for the realization or enforcement of the Audit Demand. (cont. 13)

GP 03-Feb-2020

(Continuation news of GP): before the Hon'ble HCD for appointment of arbitrator on behalf of BTRC and for interim measures against the suspension of approval & NOCs by the BTRC. On 21 October, 2019. the Hon'ble HCD rejected both the applications. In the meantime, on 14 August, 2019, a proposal letter was sent to BTRC for withdrawal of earlier demand based on 2011 audit and discontinuation of the Title Suit in relation to the 2011 audit in order to remove any perceived road block for BTRC (cont. 12)

GP 03-Feb-2020

(Continuation news of GP): capacity roughly by 30% on the ground of non-payment of the demanded amount. The direction was subsequently withdrawn on 17 July, 2019 considering the impact on subscribers. However, on 22 July, 2019, BTRC imposed operational restrictions through stopping No Objection Certificates (NOCs) and approvals on products and services and equipment Import. In this context, on 30 July, 2019, two arbitration applications were moved by Grameenphone (cont. 11)

GP 03-Feb-2020

(Continuation news of GP): as a legal recourse, Grameenphone served a notice of arbitration upon BTRC. On 30 June, 2019, Grameenphone again sent a letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Posts and Telecommunication seeking his support in resolving the matter through arbitration process. On 04 July, 2019, without participating in the arbitration proceedings, BTRC directed International Internet Gateway operators to reduce Grameenphone's internet bandwidth (cont. 10)

GP 03-Feb-2020

(Continuation news of GP): Grameenphone disputed the whole Audit Demand and on 16 April, 2019, replied against the demand requesting BTRC to withdraw the demand and to engage in discussions with a view to find an amicable resolution. On 12 May, 2019, BTRC further directed Grameanphone to make the full payment without any delay. On 20 June, 2019, BTRC again asked Grameenphone to pay the full amount within 10 days, Thereafter, on 23 June, 2019, (cont. 9)

GP 03-Feb-2020

(Continuation news of GP): regarding the audit findings were not addressed by BTRC. On 02 April, 2019, Grameenphone received a demand (Audit Demand) of BDT 125,799,476,135 from BTRC for payment of BDT 84,940,104,730 (including interest of BDT 61,943,079,371 till Dec 2017) to BTRC and BDT 40,859,371,405 to National Board of Revenue (NBR) within 10 (ten) working days. Pointing out the errors in the methodologies, procedure and substance of the audit exercise, (cont. 8)

GP 03-Feb-2020

(Continuation news of GP): on 11 December, 2017. Grameenphone provided feedback clarifying its position against the observations on 18 January, 2018. Subsequently, on 26 August, 2018, BTRC shared the full audit report for Grameenphone's feedback and Grameenphone responded to the same in September 2018. Despite numerous interactions with BTRC and full cooperation to the BTRC appointed auditors, Grameenphone's concerns (cont. 7)

GP 03-Feb-2020

(Continuation news of GP): On 30 September, 2018, BTRC filed an application for dismissal of the case without going into the merit. The hearing of the application has not taken place yet. In 2015, BTRC appointed a new auditor through a fresh appointment process to conduct an information system audit on Grameenphone since inception i.e. 1997 to 2014. As part of the audit process, BTRC appointed auditor shared a summary of the draft audit observations for Grameenphone's feedback (cont. 6)

GP 03-Feb-2020

(Continuation news of GP): passed an order of status quo on the demand, which is effective till disposal of the-matter at the Hon'ble HCD. It is to be noted that in a separate Writ Petition filed by another audit firm challenging the auditor appointment process of BTRC, the appointment of the said auditor by BTRC was declared illegal by the Hon?ble HCD in 2011 for non-compliance with the relevant procurement laws which was later on upheld by the Hon?ble Appellate Division (AD) in 2013. (cont. 5)

GP 03-Feb-2020

(Continuation news of GP): Grameenphone clarified to both BTRC and their auditors, that those observations were framed on incorrect basis. Thereafter, Grameenphone disagreed to the claim made by BTRC and responded to the letter requesting BTRC to withdraw the notice. Subsequently, Grameenphone filed a Title Suit before the learned District Court, Dhaka challenging the BTRC demand. In an Appeal arising out of the Title Suit, the Hon'ble High Court Division (HCD) (cont. 4)

Previous Next page