Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL 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



Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Order, 1972
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Article 33

Article 33 of the Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha. Order (P.O. 128 of 1972) provides for filing an application before the District Judge for realisation of its outstanding dues. Such an application has to be filed before the District Judge who may hear it himself or transfer it to an Additional District Judge or a Subordinate Judge for its disposal. A Subordinate Judge acting as an Artha Rin Adalat cannot entertain such an application directly. Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs Fashion Wear Limited, 18 BLD (AD) 186. ....View Full Judgment

Articles 33, 34 and 35

The Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Order is a special order which provides for three independent and alternative modes of recovery of Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha dues as contained in Articles 33, 34 and 35 of the Order. Article 33 provides for filing of an application before the District Judge. Article 34 speaks of taking over management and administration of an industrial concern and its sale while Article 35 provides for taking recourse to the Public Demands Recovery Act. Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs Azir Uddin Chowdhury, 18 BLD (AD) 145. ....View Full Judgment

Article 33(5)

Notice requiring payment of the money before passing decree is mandatory requirement of law—
District Judge is mandated under article 33(5) of the P.O. No.128 of 1972 to issue notice to the other party to make payment of the money in question before passing the decree which is the mandatory requirement of law. As the District Judge passed the decree without issue of such notice the decree so passed being illegal was set aside by the High Court Division which the apex court found perfectly justified. Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha BSRS j Vs. Mrs. Monozvara Begum being dead her heir Mir Md. Iqbal Hossain and others 11 MLR (2006) (AD) 329. ....View Full Judgment

Article 33

Herein the appellant, the builders being one of the parties in the agreement, must be liable for the loan as provided by the clause "any person liable for payment" as in clause (3)-Article 33 (l)-Sangstha entitled to recover the loan money from the appellant. Dira Dockyard Engr Ltd vs BSRS 39 DLR (AD) 59 ....View Full Judgment

Articles 33, 34 and 35

The trial Judge as well as the High Court Division acted illegally in granting temporary injunction in a matter covered under Article 34 of the BSRS Order which is a special enactment and it will prevail over general law. The temporary injunction order in this case had been passed contrary to the. scheme of the legislation and the purpose of the special law providing for speedy recovery of the dues of the Sangstha. Bangladesh Shilpa Rain Sangstha vs Azir Uddin Chowdhury 51 DLR (AD)96. ....View Full Judgment

Article 33

The Sangstha, alleged in Its petition that was established under P.O. No 128 of 1972 to provide credit facilities and other assistance to industrial concerns Bangladesh. The opposite party No. 1 Tapashee Shipping Lines Limited is a public limited company carrying on the business of water transport — On the application of Tapashee, the Sangstha sanctioned a loan to Tapashee for acquisition of 2 (Two) 600 DWT cargo vessels — To that effect a loan Agreement was concluded between Tapashee and the Sangstha on 31.5.1980
— On 28.9. 1980 a tripartite contract was entered into between the Sangstha and Tapashee on the one hand as ‘Purchaser” and the opposite party No.6 Dira Dockyard and Engineers Limited, a ship building company. It was stipulated in the tripartite contract that the dockyard will build at its own site. 2 (Two) coasters of 600 DWT capacity in accordance with specifications drawn by the Sangstha and deliver the same to Tapashee.
The total price of the 2 (Two) coasters will be Tk.95,75,000/- out of this amount the Sangstha will pay to the dockyard Tk.70,00,000/- will be paid by the Tapashee through a crossed cheque on a scheduled bank — the work order was placed on 28.10.1980 and last date of delivery of the vessels was 16.12.1981 — But the dockyard in violation of the contract and the letter of credit had imported/procured secondhand/reconditioned marine engines. Tapashee was asked by the Sangstha but Tapashee did not care to reply — The project was also discussed by the Martial Law Investigation Committee and the disbursed amount — the Sangstha claims a sum of Tk 64.46 lakhs due upto 1.1.1983. Held : In the face of such grave allegations Tapashee chose for reasons best known to it not to give any reply to the series of letters addressed to it by the Sangstha and remain silent which was trying to salvage the project. There cannot be any manner of doubt that the Sangstha in the aforesaid circumstances became entitled to repayment of the loan under Article 32. That being so, there can also be no doubt that the Sangstha was fully entitled to proceed against the opposite party respondents No.1-5 under Article 33 for realisation of the loan. Thus in any case it must be said that the High Court Division upon a mistaken view of the law and facts wrongly held that Article 33 was not attracted in the case of the aforesaid opposite party-respondents. In view of the discussion above, the Sangsthas appeal is liable to be allowed. (Para-36)
Dira Dockyard & Engineers Ltd & Ors Vs. BSRS & Ors 3 BLT (AD)-207. ....View Full Judgment

Article 34

There is nothing in Article 34 or in any other provision of the BSRS Order to show that it is only in respect of a claim admitted by the loanee that the authority is entitled to proceed under the relevant provisions of the order for realisation of the dues. Al-Helal Rice Mills Ltd vs Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha 51 DLR (AD) 51. ....View Full Judgment

Articles 34 and 35

The defendant­-appellant need not have filed applications under Order VII, rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. It could have maintained applications under Article 34(5) of Presidents Order No. 128 of972, not for rejection of the plaint, but for not entertaining the suits. Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha vs Rahman Textile Mills Ltd and others 51 DLR (AD) 221. ....View Full Judgment

Article 34(5)

Ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Order 7 rule 11— Distinction between rejection of plaint and non-entertainment—
Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Order 1972 is a special statute containing substantive and procedural provisions with over-riding force over all other laws. Provision of sub-section (5) of section 34 of the P.O. 128 of 1972 clearly ousts the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit in respect of reliefs enumerated under clause (a) (i) (ii) and (iii) thereof. In view of the express provision of the ouster clause, no suit in respect thereof is entertainable by the Civil Court. Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and non-entertainment of suit by Civil Court under section 34(5) of the Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Order. 1972 are distinctly different aspects operating under two different contexts. (Both appeals are allowed on this majority view).
His Lordship Mr. Justice B.B.Roy Chowdhury on the contrary held, where no forum for remedy against any injustice is provided under the law, the absolute bar to the jurisdiction of the civil court can not operate, because such a proposition will perpetrate injustice without remedy.
Bangladesh Sangstha Vs. Rahman Textile Mills Ltd. & others— 4, MLR (1999) (AD) 228. ....View Full Judgment

Article 35(5)(a)(iii)

It puts a definite embargo on any Court to pass any order of injunction or any other order prohibiting or restraining the Sangstha with regard to such taking over, sale or transfer. Article 34(5)(b) precludes the Courts of civil jurisdiction to grant an adinterim or temporary injunction in a matter covered by Article 34 of the Order. Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs Azir Uddin Chowdhury, 18 BLD (AD) 145. ....View Full Judgment