Play store
Mohammad Maruful Alam Chowdhury and The Daily Share Biz authority have sent separate rejoinders in response to a report published by Sarabangla.net on August 13, 2026, titled “HC directive against Share Biz as Robi claims Tk 400cr in damages.”
The report said Robi Axiata PLC had obtained an interim direction from the High Court restraining Share Biz and other defendants from publishing, disseminating or distributing allegedly defamatory reports concerning the telecom operator, its officials and employees, pending disposal of an injunction application in a civil suit in which Robi is seeking Tk 400 crore in damages. It quoted Robi’s counsel Barrister Suhan Khan and Share Biz News Editor Hasan Shirazi.
In his rejoinder, Mohammad Maruful Alam Chowdhury disputed the characterisation of the reports and legal proceedings referred to in the Sarabangla report. He said the July 29 report published by Share Biz was based on documents obtained from a relevant statutory body and not documents obtained from him.
He also referred to a subsequent Share Biz report published on August 5, which, according to him, stated that the July 29 report had been based on documents received from the National Board of Revenue (NBR).
Chowdhury further said Robi had been given an opportunity to provide its version before publication and that a questionnaire had been sent to the relevant department of the telecom operator. He claimed that Robi had assured that it would provide a statement but ultimately did not furnish any statement or supporting documents. He also disputed the suggestion that the report had been published without prior verification or an opportunity for Robi to respond.
According to Chowdhury, Robi’s Managing Director subsequently appointed the law firm Accord Chambers and sent a legal notice on August 3 at 11:20pm, allowing an eight-hour period for compliance. He said Robi then filed an application before the court on August 4 and that the matter was not admitted on that date. He further claimed that the matter was subsequently fixed for admission hearing on August 13.
Chowdhury alleged that while the legal matter was awaiting initial admission, Robi approached the High Court and obtained a temporary direction on August 10 relating to publication of the reports. He described the development as a procedural step that resulted in the admission hearing being rescheduled.
He said he subsequently sent a formal legal reply on August 12, challenging what he described as baseless and unsubstantiated allegations and providing supporting documents concerning his statements to Share Biz, as well as documents relating to previous regulatory matters involving the NBR, Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) and Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission (BSEC).
Chowdhury also said separate civil and criminal proceedings had been initiated against Robi and its officials and were pending before two different courts. He alleged that the accusations against him amounted to an attempt to cause mental and social harassment and interfere with the judicial process. These allegations are his position and have not been independently adjudicated.
Meanwhile, The Daily Share Biz authority, in a separate rejoinder signed by its Editor and Publisher Meer Moniruzzaman, strongly protested the August 13 Sarabangla report and described it as one-sided and misleading.
Share Biz said the legal case referred to in the Sarabangla report had not yet been admitted by the lower court. It argued that describing the matter as an active case before such admission was inaccurate.
The newspaper also objected to what it described as the failure to obtain a statement from its counsel.
According to Share Biz, the Sarabangla report gave extensive prominence to the statement of Robi’s lawyer but did not include the views of the lawyer representing Share Biz.
Share Biz further raised objections concerning a telephone conversation with one of its representatives. It claimed that the representative had not been formally informed that the conversation was being recorded or used for an official news statement, and alleged that the representative’s designation was also inaccurately presented.
The newspaper also disputed the reference to S Alam Group in the Sarabangla report. It said S Alam Group currently has no ownership, shareholding or business relationship with Share Biz and alleged that the reference was misleading.
Share Biz demanded publication of its rejoinder and an unconditional apology, while reserving the right to take legal action over what it described as defamatory reporting.
Sarabangla’s position
Sarabangla.net has carefully reviewed both rejoinders and respects the positions expressed by Mohammad Maruful Alam Chowdhury and The Daily Share Biz authority.
However, the August 13 report was not intended to level allegations against any individual or organisation, damage anyone’s reputation or take a position in favour of or against any party. The report was published to inform readers about judicial proceedings, matters placed before the court and the interim direction issued by the High Court.
The report was based on court proceedings, judicial documents and other verifiable information relating to the legal dispute. Its central elements were that Robi Axiata PLC had taken legal action seeking Tk 400 crore in damages, that Share Biz and other parties were named in the proceedings, and that the High Court had issued an interim direction in connection with the matter. These developments form part of the judicial proceedings.
Chowdhury’s rejoinder raises questions concerning the sources and factual basis of reports published by Share Biz on July 29 and August 5. However, the focus of Sarabangla’s August 13 report was not to independently adjudicate the factual basis of those earlier reports. Rather, it was to report on the subsequent legal proceedings and the High Court’s direction arising from the dispute.
Chowdhury was not identified in the August 13 report as the source or author of the reports in question, nor was any separate allegation made against him. Similarly, the report did not present any party’s allegations as a final finding of the court.
Sarabangla also maintains that mentioning an individual or organisation in the context of judicial proceedings or a news report is not, in itself, equivalent to making an allegation against that individual or organisation. The report sought to maintain that distinction.
The absence of a particular lawyer’s statement or a difference in the parties’ interpretation of a procedural issue does not, by itself, invalidate information derived from court proceedings and judicial records. Sarabangla included the response it had obtained from Share Biz News Editor Hasan Shirazi, who acknowledged the High Court’s direction and said the organisation had submitted relevant documents to its lawyer.
Sarabangla therefore does not agree with the characterisations of the report as “unverified”, “one-sided”, “motivated” or “defamatory”. The report was published on the basis of information concerning judicial proceedings and relevant documents, and the news organisation stands by its journalistic and factual basis.
At the same time, Sarabangla remains open to reviewing any specific factual error, quotation or statement if any party provides credible documentary evidence demonstrating that it was inaccurate. Such review is consistent with the basic principles of responsible journalism.
Sarabangla does not take a position for or against any individual or organisation involved in the dispute. Its responsibility is to present readers with verifiable information and relevant judicial developments in a fair and responsible manner. The August 13 report was published in accordance with that principle.