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



Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of 2003) (অর্থ ঋণ আদালত আইন)
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 2 (Ka)(4)

On the question of removal the name of Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation from the definition clause of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, it is found that the Appellate Division pronounced the judgment on 22-7-1996 i.e. long before coming into force of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. It is very unfortunate that Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs still did not act as per the decision of 49 DLR (AD) 80 and 47 DLR 158 thereby causes hindrance in the matter of administra­tion of Justice. It is expected that in no time Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs will act as per the aforesaid decisions and delete House Building Finance Corpora­tion from section 2 Ka(4) of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. Begum Shirin Akhtar vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation 16 BLC 1. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 3, 26, 30 and 34

Since the word "Ifllffij" (directly) has been used in section 34(10) of the Ain, it cannot be inter­preted that prior show cause notice is necessary as the meaning of section 34(10) would be nugatory is such a case. Thus, the provisions of section 51 and Order XXI, rule 37 of the Code are in conflict with the provisions of section 34(1)(9) (10) of the Ain. Under section 26 of the Ain the provision of the Code is applicable so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Ain which includes the provisions of section 34 of the Ain. Moreover, under section 30 of the Ain special provision has been made for publishing notice after filing of the execution case undtv rrrUun circumstances. From the sub-sections (9) and (10) of section 34 of the Ain, there is nothing to show that there is any scope of issuing any show cause notice before issuing warrant of arrest rather it appears that warrant of arrest may be issued directly. What is not in the law itself, cannot be imported in the law by way of interpretation. Manik K Bhattacherjee vs Artha Rin Adalat 16 BLC 195. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

Adalat cannot entertain any execution case to execute the decree in the preliminary form requiring final decree and, as such, continuation of the execution case is unlawful apparent on the face of record without having any legal sanction. Inter­national Tannery vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 17 BLC 380. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 5, 6

Counterclaim or separate suit of the loanee– The Artha Rin Adalat was exclusively for the purpose of hearing suits instituted by financial institutions for the recovery of their loans and the rules of procedure were provided in the Ain itself. Therefore, it is the prerogative of the financial institutions and a mandate of the law that all financial institutions shall file suits for recovery of their loans in the Artha Rin Adalat. Such a prerogative cannot be thwarted nor the mandate avoided. Moreover, the exclusivity of the jurisdiction cannot in any way be infiltrated or obfuscated by any counterclaim, set off or separate suit of the loanee. ...M/S. Motazzerul Islam (Mithu) =VS= ICB Islami Bank Ltd., (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 255] ....View Full Judgment

Section 6

The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
Section 138
Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
Section 6
Civil and criminal cases shall proceed in accordance with law– The final conclusion of the High Court Division is contradictory to several decisions of this Division wherein it has been clearly held that the pendency of a civil suit will not hinder proceeding of a criminal case and vice versa. In this regard, reference may be made to the cases of Monzur Alam (Md) vs State, 55 DLR (AD) 62, SAB Solaiman Ali vs Rangs Industries Limited, 2004 1 Law Guardian (AD) 20.
We are constrained to hold that the impugned judgements and orders of the High Court Division are palpably erroneous set aside. Accordingly, the criminal petitions for leave to appeal are disposed of with direction that both civil and criminal cases shall proceed in accordance with law. ...Eastern Bank Limited =VS= Sirajuddula(Md), (Criminal), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 566] ....View Full Judgment

Section 6(5)

Third party–
A third party is neither a necessary nor a proper party in a suit for realisation of ‘FY’ against debtors. Therefore, neither section 19 nor section 41 has provided any provision to redress the grievances of a third party in respect of a mortgaged property. If someone takes loan from a bank by mortgaging another’s property by way of deceitful means or by resorting to forgery or collusion or by misrepresentation, the Adalat cannot adjudicate the issue. Sub-section (5) of section 6 has specifically provided the parties against whom a suit under the Ain can be filed. Other than those persons, there is no scope under the Ain to implead any person to add as defendant in the suit. .....Sekandar (Md.) =VS= Janata Bank Ltd., (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 448] ....View Full Judgment

Section 6(5)

Bank is always at liberty to file the suit for recovery of the loan amount against the principal borrower as well as the guarantor who mortgaged her property as security of the loan– The plaintiff-bank must take step to recover the decretal amount from the principal-debtor, namely, the loanee-company, and in case, the principal debtor failed to satisfy the decretal amount, the decretal amount should be recovered by selling the property of the principal debtor or encashing the FDR pledged to the plaintiff-bank. The plaintiff-bank is always at liberty to file the suit for recovery of the loan amount against the principal borrower as well as the guarantor who mortgaged her property as security of the loan at the same time. ...Agrani Bank =VS= Hosne Ara Begum(Mrs.), (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 590] ....View Full Judgment

Section 9(5) read with 13(1)

Impugned Judgment and decree passed under Section 13(1) —Held if there is no specific admission made in the written statement as contemplated in section 9 (5) of the Ain, the Adalat cannot come to conclusion as regards the said fact of the case. Md. Arfan Uddin Akand & Ors Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Ors 15 BLT (HCD)343 ....View Full Judgment

Section 12(8)

Deposit of the rest of the auction money within next 10 (ten) days is not mandatory and the provision of sub-section (2) of section 33 is not applicable to the auction sale held under section 12—
The provision of section 33(2) is applicable to the cases of auction sale held in pursuance of the execution of decree of the court and not to the cases of auction sale held under section 12. Zinnatul Ara and others Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 185. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 12 and 33

The auction of the concerned property of the petitioners was not sold in auction in pursuance of a decree or order as envisaged under section 33 of the Ain but the auction was made prior to filing of the suit in pursuance to sub-section 1 of section 12 of the Ain, as such, under sub­section 4 of section 12, the provisions of section 33 are not mandatory. Zinnatul Ara vs Bangladesh 15 BLC (AD) 168. ....View Full Judgment

Section 13

The petitioner being the defendants may still raise the question of liability which they did not raise at the time of framing of issues in the suit by filing an application under section 13 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and the Court may, on such application, adjudicate upon the question of liability of the present petitioners as issues of law. Prime Global Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat 11 BLC 236. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 17(1)(2)

The period prescri­bed for disposal of Artha Rin suit as laid down in section 17 of the Ain, 2003 is merely directory and not mandatory. So, there is no legal mandate to stop or dismiss the Artha Rin suit if the trial of the same be not concluded within the period of 90 days and further extended period of 30 days. The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 has been promul­gated by the Parliament incorporating different provisions including stipulated period of disposal of the suit. The only purpose is for speedy disposal of the suit, otherwise the defaulting borrowers of the financial institutions with their best efforts will cause delay in the process of trial. Bangla­desh German Food (Pvt) Ltd vs Bangladesh 14 BLC 266. ....View Full Judgment

Section 19 (2)(3) & (4)

Ex parte decree–
Sub-sections (2)(3) and (4) of section 19 of the Ain is that if a proper application is made by the defendant for setting aside an ex parte decree in accordance with law a right accrues to the defendant to have the ex parte decree set aside. In the present case the only point in issue is whether or not the defendant filed the application for setting aside the ex parte decree within the time stipulated by law. Admittedly miscellaneous case was not filed within 30 days from the date of the decree. Whether or not it was filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree is a matter to be decided with the help of evidence, adduced by the parties. It is our considered view that the view taken by the High Court Division that the appellant had knowledge through her constituted attorney is absolutely misconceived since knowledge of any party to the suit is a matter personal to that party. Knowledge can only be ascertained upon taking evidence. There is no evidence on record to indicate that even the attorney was examined to ascertain whether or not this defendant had received notices of the suit. The judgement and order of the High Court Division is hereby set aside. The artha rin miscellaneous case is sent back to the Artha Rin Adalat, First Court, Chittagong, where the appellant (defendant No.8) is to be given an opportunity to prove her knowledge as contemplated in section 19(2)of the Ain by adducing evidence. The Artha Rin Adalat is directed to dispose of the miscellaneous case within four months of receipt of this judgement. .....Dilruba Morshed (Mrs.) =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 104] ....View Full Judgment

Section 20

No form of word seeking to limit the jurisdiction of the ordinary court protects a nullity. A judgment-debtor not concerned with the loan either as borrower, mortgagor or guarantor is not precluded by the ouster clause from protecting his pro­perty by resort to ordinary civil court. Per M. Moazzam Husain J (dissenting). Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd vs Md. Salauddin 16 BLC 277. ....View Full Judgment

Section 21 read with Section-22(4)

High Court Division’s observations is that It is now a settled principle that an application is not to be decided only on the basis of the provision of law mentioned in the application but on the basis of the materials contained in the application and an application is not to be rejected because of wrong mentioning of the provisions o law. In deciding any application the conduct of the patties need also to he considered. -Held; The High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision.
M/s. Ali Reza Vs. Artha Rin Adalat, 2nd Court & Anr 15 BLT (AD)323 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 21 and 22, 38 and 45

In the Ain, a settlement can be effected at three stages of proceedings; firstly, at the pretrial stage of the proceedings under sections 21 and 22; secondly, after the passing of the decree and during the pendency of execution proceedings under section 38 and the last phase is under section 45, which authrorizes the Artha Rin Adalat to accept the settlement or conciliation for the payment of the decreetal amount at any stage of the proceeding i.e. even at the final stage of the execution proceedings. …Lt. Col. M. A. Mannan (Retd.) =VS= Social Investment Bank Ltd., (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 280] ....View Full Judgment

Section 26

Section 26 of the Ain of 2003 has expressly debarred application of the provisions of other statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure pending execution proceedings so far it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Ain of 2003. In other words, the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure so far it relates to the procedure to make the suit ready for holding trial of Artha Rin Suit as well as for execution of decrees are applicable which are not in conflict with the Ain of 2003. Bodiuzzaman Milan vs Bangladesh Commerce Bank Limited 17 BLC 426. ....View Full Judgment

Section 27(1)

Rule 58 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure requires an executing Court to investigate the claim or objection of an objector as if he was a party to suit. Such investigation is dispensed with only when the court considers the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. The court did not find the claim or objection of AB Bank was delayed. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the Fourth Artha Rin Adalat which now holds the property must dispose of both execution cases under section 27 of the Ain. In the result, the appeal is disposed of without however any order as to cost. Third Artha Rin Adalat is directed to send the decree dated 29-7-99 passed by it in Title Suit No. 125 of 1992 to the Fourth Artha Rin Adalat for execution and Fourth Artha Rin Adalat is directed to execute both the decrees in accordance with law. Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd vs Janata Bank 11 BLC 186 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 28(3), 37 and 60(3)

Since there was no suit of the Financial Institutions pending before any Commercial Court after 1990. Thereafter, Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 having come into force on 1-5-2003 upon repealing the Ain of 1990, the said execution case was transferred to the Artha Rin Adalat constituted under the Ain 2003 pursuant to section 60(3) of the said Ain. As such, dismissal of the said execution case on 16-5-2003 for default was made by the Adalat constituted under Ain 2003. Hence, filing of the second execution case on 13-11-2003 is very much within one year of the dismissal of the earlier case and is wholly within the scope of section 28(3) of the said Ain of 2003. Thus, there is no illegality in filing of the execution case and continuation of the pro­ceeding of the same. Moreover, the time limit fixed by section 37 of the Ain 2003, for disposal of execution case within 150 days being "directory" not "mandatory", as decided in Writ Petition No. 7615 of 2005 (M Serajul Islam vs Bangladesh) by this bench, there is no illegality in the proceedings of the execution case. Khurshid Alam (Md) vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 12 BLC 592 ....View Full Judgment

Section 31

There is no scope for the High Court Division to pass any order of stay of the order of the executing Court without finding any illegality in the procedure and the manner of selling the mortgaged property in auction.
Farid Uddin Mahmud: -Vs.- Md. Saidur Rahman and others 5 ALR (AD)2015(1) 31 ....View Full Judgment

Section 32

The High Court Division held that if it could be shown that the decree was obtained by practicing fraud, the aggrieved party had its remedy under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain under section 32 by depositing 10% of the decreetal amount and that an independent suit is not maintainable. .....Sekandar (Md.) =VS= Janata Bank Ltd., (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 448] ....View Full Judgment

Section 33(5)

Issuance of certificate of sale of the mortgaged property in favour of the decree-holder when the auction sale could not be held due to low price offered by the bidders, terminates the execution proceedings leaving behind no scope of stay of further proceedings and to grant instalment in payment of decretal amount. Mohiuddin (Sk.) Vs. Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka and others 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 356. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 33 and 34

Section 34 of the Ain, 2003 provides for ordering civil impri­sonment ttpto 6 months against a judgment-debtor for compelling to satisfy the decree. Section 34 is not dependent upon section 33. Provisions of section 34 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 that the law provides for simple civil imprisonment of the judgment-debtor to compel to make the payment for satisfaction of the decree and is not an alternative punishment in lieu of payment of the decretal amount. Civil imprisonment will not exempt payment of the decretal amount. Provat Kumar Das vs Agrani Bank 15 BLC (AD) 113. ....View Full Judgment

Section 33

Against the order of discharge for default–
The Appellate Division held that it appears from the record that earlier both the Rules were discharged for default in the High Court Division and those were restored .second time, both the appeared in the list with the names of the learned Advocates of the petitioner but he did not turn –up when those were taken up for hearing. Consequently .both the Rules were again discharged for default. In view of the facts of the case and other circumstances, the Appellate Division does not find any illegality in the orders of the High Court Division in rejecting the prayers to recall the orders of discharged for default. Accordingly both the petitions are dismissed. .....Md. Nuruzzaman =VS= Artha Rin Adalat & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 416] ....View Full Judgment

Section 33(7)

Judgment-debtor can always settle the matter with the decree- holder Bank arranging the payment of the decretal amount–
The impugned order of the High Court Division and those of the executing Court dated 31-5-2006 and 26-2-2008 are set aside. The executing Court is directed to hold fresh auction of the property in question in accordance with law. The decree-holder is directed to take positive step in the matter in that regard. It does not require any direction/order by this Court, because the judgment-debtor can always settle the matter with the decree- holder Bank arranging the payment of the decretal amount. .....Ellal Textile Mills Limited =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 110] ....View Full Judgment

Sections 33(5), 57

Judgment debtor have no right to redeem mortgaged property that the decree-holder has already sold the suit property in favour of the respondent No.8 by registered sale deed and therefore there is no scope to interfere with the bonafide purchase for value– The decree of foreclosure in favour of the plaintiff attained its finality and the judgment debtor shall have no right to redeem the said mortgaged property. Moreover after issuance of the certificate under Section 33(5) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain the same court of Artha Rin Adalat Ain had no power to entertain the application of the appellant invoking Section 57 of the ARtha Rin Adalat Ain as such power under Section 57 is only available when the other provisions of the Ain are not exhaustive. In this case after the certificate issued under Section 33(5) of the Ain the decree-holder has already sold the suit property in favour of the respondent No.8, Md. Rafique by registered sale deed and therefore there is no scope to interfere with the bonafide purchase for value. …Sonali Bank, Dhaka =VS= Hazera Islam(Mrs.), (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 140] ....View Full Judgment

Section 34

Empowers the Artha Rin Adalat to pass order for civil imprisonment against the judgment-debtor—
Section 34 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 empowers the Artha Rin Adalat to pass order for civil imprisonment against the judgment-debtor to compel payment of decretal dues, section 34 is not dependent on section 33. When inspite of steps taken by the decree-holder, no auction purchaser came up the Artha Rin Adalat was competent to pass order for civil imprisonment. The civil imprisonment is not the alternative provision and as such it does not absolve the liability of paying the decretal dues. The Appellate Division held the High Court Division was perfectly justified in passing the impugned judgment and order. Proval Kumar Das Vs. Manager Agrani Bank, Main Branch Shahcb Bazar, Rajshahi and another 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 96. ....View Full Judgment

Section 34 (2) & (11)

The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
Section 34 (2) & (11)
The Code of Civil Procedure
Order XXI Rule 37
Exempting a woman judgment-debtor–
The High Court Division observed that there was no requirement under provisions of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 to issue show cause notice and that the provisions of Order XXI of the Code are applicable in execution cases where the prayer is for execution of a money decree. .....Mst. Sufia Khatun =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, Khulna & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 226] ....View Full Judgment

Section 34 (2) & (11)

Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 for exempting a woman judgment-debtor from being arrested for the purpose of realisation of the decretal amount as per section 34 of the special law. Section 34 sub-sections (2) and (11) have exempted certain other persons from being arrested and non-inclusion of a woman judgment-debtor in the list of exempted persons indicates that this category is not exempted from being arrested. .....Mst. Sufia Khatun =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, Khulna & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 226] ....View Full Judgment

Sections 37 and 49

It appears that the time-frame for disposal of the execution case has been provided for in section 37 of the Act. But it would appear from the other provi­sions of the Act, notably section 49, that in case of allowing the installment an execution case can be extended beyond 150 days and at least for the next three years from the date of allowing an application filed by the judg­ment-debtor, praying for installments and agreed to by the decree-holder. In such a case, the period of time under section 37 of the Act would be subject to the application of the provisions of section 49 as envisaged under sub-section 2 of section 37 of the Act. It is apparent that the requirement of time-frame for disposal of an execution case, as stated in section 37, is merely directory and not mandatory. Monwar Hossain vs Government of Bangladesh 13 BLC 181. ....View Full Judgment

Section 41

Appeal against order passed by Artha Rin Adalat in Execution case without deposit of 50% decretal money is not maintainable —
Artha Rin Adalat Ain being a special statute shall prevail over all other laws including the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Appeal against order of rejection of application for setting aside auction sale on ground of low valuation without deposit of 50% decretal amount is held by the Appellate Division as no appeal in the eye of law. Korea-Bangladesh Food Products Ltd. Vs. National Bank Limited and others 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 253. ....View Full Judgment

Section 41

It appears that the judg­ment of the Artha Rin Adalat was appealable under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and instead of filing the appeal in lime the petitioner manufactured letter dated 26-1-2000 in order to justify their failure to file appeal in time. The remedy in the writ jurisdiction is an equitable one and to seek the same one must come with clean hands and since two judges of the High Court Division held that the petitioner did not come to the High Court Division with clean hands have rightly found the writ petition as not maintainable. Oriental Bank Ltd vs AB Siddiq (Ludu) 13 BLC (AD) 144. ....View Full Judgment

Section 41

A third party cannot file any application for setting aside the decree or order.
The Appellate Division held that section 41 of the Ain empowers any party to the litigation to file an appeal against a decree or order in the High Court Division if the decreetal amount is above taka fifty lacs within 60 days and in the court of District Judge below the said amount within 30 days, but the judgment debtor shall have to deposit 50% of the decreetal amount or a security of the similar amount at the time of filing appeal in default of which the appeal will not be entertainable. This provision for appeal is also not available to a third party. Under the said provision, a third party cannot file any application for setting aside the decree or order. Even if a third party has the power to file a petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree, he is not entitled to take the plea of his owner¬ship in the mortgaged property because the powers and jurisdiction given to an Adalat by the Ain is to decide a suit of the nature which has limited ambit of the amount of ‘FY’ and interest. The question of title to in the mortgaged property cannot be looked into by the Adalat.
Md. Sekandar and another -Vs.- Janata Bank Ltd. and others (Civil) 9 ALR (AD) 81-94 ....View Full Judgment

Section 42

Since the Writ Petition was not maintainable, the learned Judges ought not to have entered into the merit of the petitioner's claim.
The facts and circumstances of the instant case, the revisional forum as provided in section 42 of the Ain, 2003 was definitely efficacious and the petitioner rightly filed the revision application being Civil Revision No.600 of 2009 before the High Court Division, but the Rule had to be discharged on the wrong observation made by the learned Judge of the Single Bench. We further observe that before entering in to the merit of a writ petition the judges owe a duty to see whether the writ petition is maintainable in law, and in the case in hand since the writ petition was not maintainable the learned Judges ought not to have entered into the merit of the petitioner's claim to the property in question.
Md. Golzar Hossain Advocate -Vs.- Janata Bank 3 ALR(2014)(1)(AD)130 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 42 and 43

Defendant No. 2 never mortgaged the suit property against the loan obtained by defendant No. 1. All the original title deeds have been lying with the defendant No. 2 and had the suit property been mortgaged by the defendant No. 2 the original title deeds would have been in the custody of plaintiff.-Bank. The specific finding of the trial Court is that defendant Nos. 1 and 3 in connivance with each other by practicing fraud upon the plaintiff-petitioner had shown a mortgage and obtained a loan but the appellate Court did not give any reason how defendant No. 2 was responsible for the said loan and abruptly gave a direction upon the Bank to realize the decreetal amount from the defendant No. 2 on the failure of defendant No. 3. Such findings are contrary to evidence on record. nternational Finance.
Investment and Commerce BankLtd. (IFIC Bank Ltd).-Vs.-Abdur Rahman and others (Civil) 1 ALR (AD) 65 ....View Full Judgment

Section 44

It is settled by several decisions of this Division that the interlocutory order passed in a Artha Rin Suit by the Artha Rin Adalat can be challenged in writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division– It appears that the High Court Division in its impugned judgment, by making an elaborate discussion and also quoting section 44 of the Arthat Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, held that since there is a specific provision in Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 providing that an interlocutory order passed by the Adalat cannot be challenged in appellate or revisional forum and there having been no other alternative remedy available to challenge the impugned interlocutory order the writ petition was maintainable. We are in agreement with the above observation and decision of the High Court Division. The impugned order is an interlocutory order. The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 has clearly provided that no interlocutory order passed in a Artha Rin Suit can be challenged either in appeal or in revision. So, in the circumstances there being no other alternative forum to challenge any interlocutory order passed by the Artha Rin Adalat in Artha Rin Suit any party to the suit aggrieved by such interlocutory order can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division. It has already been settled by several decisions of this Division that the interlocutory order passed in a Artha Rin Suit by the Artha Rin Adalat can be challenged in writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division. ...M/S. Orient Trading Corporation =VS= Janata Bank, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 170] ....View Full Judgment

Sections 47 and 60(3)

Reading section 47 and sub-section (3) of section 60 of the Ain, 2003 together, it does not appear that any bar has been put by the legislature either upon the financial institutions to pursue the suit on the claim more than 200% over the actual loan disbursed to a loanee here the appellant filed before 1st May, 2004 or upon the Artha Rin Adalat to entertain any such claim made by a financial institution like the plaintiff on the allowable bank interest in vogue at the relevant time or as per terms of the contract entered into between the parties.
Humayun Hossain Khan.-Vs.-Government of Bangladesh and others.(Civil) 1 ALR (AD)127 ....View Full Judgment

Section 49(3)

Four Installment within one year
In the instant case the Adalat passed an order to make payment on four installments within one year, which means payment may he made on four installments within one year. It may be within one month, two months, six months or any month during the duration of one year. Even petitioner may make payment of 4(four) installment at a time within last day of one year. Md. Shamsul Alam Talukder Vs Bangladesh & Ors 16BLT(HCD)440 ....View Full Judgment

Section 50

Bank interest will have to be calculated according to the prevailing interest rate.
The Appellate Division is of the view that the interest to be paid by the judgement debtor will have to be calculated according to the prevailing interest rate or rates, which may be different for different periods, from the time of filing of the suit till the payment of the decretal amount by the judgement debtor. .....M/S. Rajib Traders =VS= Artha Rin Adalat & another, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 186] ....View Full Judgment

Section 57

Artha Rin Adalat can exercise its power under Section 57 of the Ain to rectify its own mistake by restoring possession to respondent No.6 in respect of the disputed land as the auction-purchaser by practising fraud upon the Adalat took possession of the land not sold in auction. Md. Salim Hossain vs Artha Rin Adalat Munshigonj 17 BLC (AD) 154. ....View Full Judgment

Section 57

It is true that no Court can be regarded as powerless to recall an order in an under trial case pending before it if it is convinced that the order is wangled through fraud or misrepresentation but pre-condition is that such proceeding must be pending before it. The Court must have jurisdiction over the proceeding before it can exercise any inherent power. The Adalat was not justified in resorting its power under section 57 of the Ain to reopen the decree after disposing of the suit. The instant Artha Rin Suit has been disposed of exparte against the defendant Nos. 2(a) to (d) and on contest against the rest. Inherent power of the Adalat in section 57 of the Ain should be exercised subject to the Ain that if the Ain does not contain specific provision which would meet the necessities of the provision should be followed and inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked. .....Parvin Akter =VS= Eastern Bank Ltd., (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 162] ....View Full Judgment

Section 60(3)

In discharging the Rule, the High Court Division held that when the execution case was pending in the Artha Rin Adalat constituted under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain of 1990,the 2003 Act of the same nomenclature came into force, by virtue of section 60(3) of which all proceedings, including execution cases, pending in Artha Rin Adalats created by the repealed Act of 1990, stood transferred to the Artha Rin Adalats created by the Act of 2003, and hence there was no lack of jurisdiction. We are left in no doubt that the legislators meant to have all proceedings pending under the 1990 Ain to be transferred intact to the Adalats constituted under the Ain of 2003. .....Shahidul Islam =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 329] ....View Full Judgment

Artha Rin Adalat, suit for realisation of loan–
The Appellate Division observed that the claim of the plaintiff is against two sets of defendants. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the borrowers. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are parties to a tripartite agreement by which the goods purchased with the loan money were to be stored in a cold storage belonging to defendant No. 4. With regard to the liability of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 the High Court Division came to a finding that the tripartite agreement may gave rise to liability of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 but that liability is not related to the loan and the proper course would be for the plaintiff bank to sue defendant Nos. 3 and 4 for realisation of money and compensation in a money suit. So far as it relates to the claim against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 the High Court Division observed that although morabaha loan was granted by the bank in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 there was no allegation against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for non-payment of claimed money. The High Court Division upheld the decision of the trial Court observing that since defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not get the remaining 844 bags of potatos, they have no liability to pay the price of the said goods. Appellate Division does not find any illegality. Accordingly, the civil petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. .....Islami Bank =VS= M/S Ahsanuddin Ahmed & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 82] ....View Full Judgment

Judgment and decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat was not maintainable–
The Appellate Division held that it is now well settled that a writ petition challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat was not maintainable and moreover, respondent No.1 as defendant No.4 contested the suit. Such a decree can only be challenged by filing an appeal within the statutory period of limitation on depositing 50% of decretal amount. .....Agrani Bank =VS= Mrs. Hosne Ara Begum & another, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 334] ....View Full Judgment