The legal dispute between Leads Corporation Limited and Khan Akhtar Alam over ownership of the company’s core banking software, BankUltimus, reached the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in 2026.
The case, Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2025, appeared on the Appellate Division’s cause list. Leads Corporation said a full bench of the Appellate Division delivered its judgment on July 27, 2026, setting aside lower-court orders concerning the auction and attachment of BankUltimus.
The dispute had earlier led to court proceedings involving the freezing of Leads’ bank accounts and the proposed auction of both BankUltimus and Leads Tower. A judgment of the High Court Division dated June 9, 2024 contains details of the relevant proceedings and orders.
Origin of the dispute
One stage of the litigation involved First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 144 of 2024 and Civil Rule No. 113(FM) of 2024.
According to court records, the underlying dispute originated from Civil Suit No. 476 of 1981, filed by Khan Akhtar Alam seeking recovery of outstanding dues. The case subsequently went through the appellate process, and a decree was issued on August 12, 2010.
As the decretal amount remained unpaid, execution proceedings were initiated. The case was initially registered as Execution Case No. 7 of 2013 and was later transferred to the Dhaka District Judge’s Court, where it continued as Civil Execution Case No. 7 of 2018.
Court records from 2024 state that the claim amounted to US$72,755,538.78 as of December 31, 2009, or the equivalent amount in Bangladeshi taka at the prevailing exchange rate at the time of payment.
To recover the money, Khan Akhtar Alam sought orders to freeze Leads’ bank accounts, auction BankUltimus and sell Leads Tower through auction.
On February 18, 2024, the Joint District Judge, First Court, Dhaka, allowed the applications through Order No. 68.
The order directed that Leads’ bank accounts be frozen and the funds held in those accounts be transferred to the decree-holder. It also ordered the attachment and auction of BankUltimus and the attachment and auction of Leads Tower.
The auction of BankUltimus was scheduled for March 27, while the auction of Leads Tower was scheduled for April 23.
High Court proceedings
Leads challenged the order before the High Court. In its judgment dated June 9, 2024, the High Court observed that the decree against Leads remained valid and that the decree-holder was entitled to seek the sale of property through the execution court for recovery of the dues.
Referring to Rules 46 and 62 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court found no legal defect in the execution court’s orders concerning the attachment of bank accounts and property and the subsequent auction process.
The court records also contain details regarding the proposed auction of BankUltimus. A bid of Tk 5 crore was mentioned in the proceedings.
Leads was given an opportunity to produce a buyer willing to offer more than that amount. According to the court record, the company failed to produce such a buyer, and a subsequent order confirmed the Tk 5 crore valuation.
In another proceeding arising from the same dispute, the High Court Division delivered a judgment on May 14, 2024, in Civil Rule No. 115(Con)(F)/2024. The case concerned an application seeking condonation of a delay of 4,865 days in filing an appeal against the judgment in Civil Suit No. 476 of 1981.
Appeal reaches the Appellate Division
Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2025, titled Leads Corporation vs Khan Akhtar Alam and others, appeared on the Supreme Court’s cause list on June 19, 2025. The case was also listed on various dates in July and August 2025.
Leads Corporation said the full bench of the Appellate Division delivered its judgment on July 27, 2026.
According to the company, the Appellate Division set aside the lower courts’ orders relating to the auction and attachment. Leads said the judgment has consequently confirmed its legal position regarding ownership and intellectual property rights over BankUltimus.
Ownership changes amid litigation
The legal dispute continued even as Leads underwent a change in ownership. In July 2024, Western Group acquired 100% of the shares of Leads Corporation. The acquisition therefore changed the ownership structure of Leads while litigation concerning BankUltimus was still pending.
Following the Appellate Division’s judgment in July 2026, Leads said the legal uncertainty surrounding ownership of the software had come to an end.
The company currently says BankUltimus is being used by 13 state-owned and private banks in Bangladesh. Leads has also announced the development of a new universal banking platform called Finginx.
Financial crisis and unpaid salaries
The ownership dispute unfolded against the backdrop of a broader financial crisis at Leads. An investigative report published in 2024 reported that salary payments at the company had become irregular from 2018. Based on statements from former officials, the report said the total amount owed to employees had reached approximately Tk 40 crore.
Former employees said salaries were sometimes delayed by three to four months. Former employee Arifur Amran Chowdhury said more than Tk 17 lakh was owed to him personally.
Former Leads Chief Operating Officer S M Saifur Rahman said the company collected Tk 6 crore to Tk 7 crore every month from various banks and financial institutions, while its monthly salary bill was around Tk 2 crore.
According to his account, the finance department told employees that a significant portion of the money was being used to repay bank loans belonging to the owners.
The report later cited former Chief Executive Officer Mizanur Rahman as having reviewed Leads’ financial records.
According to his account, before the company’s bank accounts were frozen, Leads was receiving around Tk 4 crore to Tk 5 crore per month, while its monthly salary expenditure was approximately Tk 1.5 crore.
He claimed that the financial records indicated the presence of funds, but the money was not available when required. He also suspected that the funds might have been transferred elsewhere.
However, no conclusive evidence supporting allegations that money had been transferred elsewhere or sent abroad has been found in publicly available records. Such claims should therefore be treated as allegations and statements made by the individuals concerned, rather than established facts.
Concerns over BankUltimus
Leads’ financial difficulties also raised concerns among banks using BankUltimus. A core banking system handles critical functions including customer accounts, transactions, loans, deposits, interest calculations, record-keeping and other banking operations. The financial and technical stability of the software provider is therefore important for banks relying on such systems.
Published reports said a significant number of Leads’ technology employees left the company during the period. The resulting shortage of experienced technical personnel reportedly raised concerns among user banks about the maintenance and future development of BankUltimus.
For banks, the issue was therefore not limited to software ownership. The provider’s ability to retain skilled engineers, maintain the system and provide long-term technical support was also critical.
Seven cases involving Western Engineering
A separate legal issue has emerged in connection with Leads’ new ownership. Seven writ petitions involving Western Engineering Private Limited, the National Board of Revenue and others are listed before the Supreme Court. The cases are numbered 7955/2020 through 7961/2020.
The cases appeared together on the Supreme Court’s cause lists in 2025, and they continued to appear on various cause lists in 2026.
However, the existence of cases involving the NBR does not, by itself, establish tax evasion or any other wrongdoing by a company.
The precise subject matter of the cases, the NBR’s position, Western Engineering’s response and the final outcome of the proceedings would have to be examined separately before any allegation against the company could be considered established.
Two separate questions for Leads
Leads’ current position therefore needs to be assessed from two separate perspectives. The first is the legal status of BankUltimus following the Appellate Division’s judgment. Leads says the judgment has removed the uncertainty created by the lower courts’ auction and attachment orders and has confirmed its ownership and intellectual property rights over the software.
The second concerns the company’s financial and operational recovery following its earlier crisis.
A bank’s core banking system is deeply integrated into its daily operations, including customer accounts, transactions, loans, deposits, interest calculations and financial records. As a result, the ownership, financial capacity, technical workforce and continuity of maintenance of the company operating such a system are all important considerations for banks.
In Leads’ case, the 2024 court records document a process involving the freezing of bank accounts and the proposed auction of BankUltimus and Leads Tower. Leads’ 2026 disclosures indicate that the Appellate Division subsequently set aside the relevant auction and attachment orders.
The key questions now are how Leads’ financial management is being conducted under its new ownership, how many experienced technical professionals remain responsible for BankUltimus, what level of investment is being made in the software’s development, and what arrangements are in place to ensure long-term support for its banking clients.
The beginning of a new ownership phase under Western Group does not, by itself, erase the questions raised during the company’s earlier crisis. The resolution of the BankUltimus ownership dispute addresses one part of the uncertainty, but the company’s financial recovery, workforce stability, management practices and long-term service capability remain important areas for assessment.
For the banks using BankUltimus, due diligence therefore needs to extend beyond the legal ownership of the software. The financial strength of the provider, management structure, technical workforce, information-security capabilities, maintenance arrangements and business continuity plans are equally important.
The Leads case illustrates why the stability of a core banking technology provider can become a matter of significance beyond the company itself. When the provider faces financial or operational difficulties, the consequences can potentially extend to the banks that depend on its technology and, ultimately, to their customers.
