Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh


Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note

read with Bangladesh Commerce Bank Ltd. [Act No. XII of 1997]
Section —13
Though Bangladesh Commerce and Investment Limited was neither a financial institution nor a commercial bank but even then sanctioned loan to the defendant No.1 and so the entire transaction being illegal suit does not lie; as contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners —The High Court Division observed that section 2(Ka) of Artha Rin Adalat Ain (Act IV of 1990) defines “Financial Institution” as a financial institution licensed under the Financial Institution Act, 1993 and the Preamble of Act XII of 1997 clearly states the reason for reconstitution of the erstwhile Bangladesh Commerce and Investment Limited as it, being a non-banking financial institution licensed by the Bangladesh Bank, functioned to the detriment of the interest of the depositors and customers and so the erstwhile Bangladesh Commerce and Investment Limited was a licensed financial institution within the meaning of section 2(ka) of Artha Rin Adalat Ain; besides under section 13 of the above Act 12 of 1997 all assets and liabilities of erstwhile Bangladesh Commerce and Investment Limited vested in the newly constituted respondent No. I and the newly constituted respondent No.1, being a financial institution within the meaning of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, the Adalat committed no error in taking the view that Bangladesh Commerce Bank Limited was re-constituted by Act XII of 1997 as a commercial bank and the defendants having taken loan from its predecessor i.e. Bangladesh Commerce and Investment Bank/ the suit was filed before the Adalat was maintainable —Held; It is thus evident that Act 12 of 1997 covered the loan which was granted by Commerce Bank and Investment Limited to the defendant No.1. Further the above Commerce Bank and Investment Limited, which became defunct in the year 1992 did not file the above suit. So we are of the view that the High Court Division on applying the principle of law as applicable in the present case arrived at a correct decision which does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity so as to call for any interference.
M/s. Hai Iron and Re-Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh Commerce Bank Ltd. & Ors 16 BLT (AD)122 ....View Full Judgment

Section-2 (Kha)

Loan—it seems that there is uniform opinion that with the deposit of money in a bank the relationship that follows between the banker and the depositor is one of debtor and creditor and the amount deposited is a debt to the depositor. Applying this proposition in the facts of the instant case as set out in the plaint there seems to be no escape from the conclusion that the defendant has a debt to the plaintiff which is concurrently found to be a financial institution and that being so it must be held that the suit filed by the plaintiff in the Artha Rin Adalat for realizing the said debt which is a ‘loan’; under Section 2 (Kha) is quite maintainable.
Saudi Bangladesh Ind. & Ors Vs. Eastern Bank Ltd. & Anr. 7BLT (AD)-372 ....View Full Judgment

Section-5(4) (5) Read with Order-7

read with
Rule-11 and Order-S Rule-6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
In a case under Artha Rin Adalat Ain whether a defendant can claim in written statement can set off or counterclaim— Whether an application under Order 7 Rule II C. P.C. lies for rejection of that counterclaim and whether a writ petition or civil revisional application will lie to the High Court Division, A defendant cannot claim in a written statement a set off or counterclaim against the plaintiff in a suit filed under the Artha Rin Adalat Act. The bar to claim a set off or counterclaim is not expressly contained in the Artha Rin Adalat Act, but it is implied-ly contained in section 5(1) read with section-2 (ka), 2 (kha) and sections-5(4) and 5(5) thereof. Although the effect of a set off or counterclaim is that of a plaint in a cross suit, Order-7, Rule-11, C.P.C will not apply in rejecting such set off or counterclaim. Plaintiff may have recourse to section 151 of the C.P.C. for such rejection. Alternatively, plaintiff may bring the maintainability of the set off or counterclaim as an issue of law under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. which may be decided first. In view of the paten inadmissibility of the counterclaim within the framework of Adalat Act, plaintiffs application under Order-7 Rule -Il can be treated as one under Section- 151 C.P.C.
Sultana Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Agrani Bank & Ors. 2BLT (AD)-127 ....View Full Judgment

Section 6(ka), 5(4) & (5)

The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990
Section 6(ka), 5(4) & (5) read with
The Code of Civil Procedure
Section 56
Section 5(4) and (5) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 has clothed the Artha Rin Adalat with the power to exercise its jurisdiction as a Civil Court following the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in so far as it is not inconsistent with any provision of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, the legislature was required to make express provision in section 6(Ka) to exclude the operation of section 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it was not done so. Section 6(Ka) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 can not, therefore, be construed to exclude the operation of section 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure in matters of execution of any decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat. .....Hazera Begum =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 225] ....View Full Judgment


Limitation—In the instant suit, the legal and correct decree was prepared and signed by the trial court on 3.9.96 when the original wrong decree prepared and signed on 7.2.96 was rectified upon realisation of deficit court fees from the plaintiff decree holders on the direction of the High Court Division—the limitation for preferring the appeal in question would start from 3.9.96 and not from 7.2.96.
ACKO Industries & Cold Storage Ltd. & Anr, Vs. Pubali Bank Ltd, & Ors 6BLT (AD)-126 ....View Full Judgment

Section 7

Special Limitation for depositing 50% of the decretal due cannot be relaxed.
The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 (since repealed) being a special law there is no scope for entertaining an appeal against the judgment of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 beyond the period of limitation specified in the law and that too without depositing the decretal due. The High Court Division had no power in permitting the respondent to deposit 50% of the decretal due amount after the special period of limitation of 30 days provided for by the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990. The High court Division can not legislate something which not in the Statute itself. State Bank of India, Dhaka Branch -Vs.- SABINCO 3 ALR(2014)(1)(AD) 21 ....View Full Judgment