Article 27
|
Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation Order, 1973
Article 27
Artha Rin Adalat Act, 1990, Section — 5(1)
Upon examining the relevant provisions of Artha Rin Adalat Act, 1990 and
P.O. No. 7 of 1973, particularly Article 27, the Appellate Division held
that the world mamla as used in Section 5(1) of the Act refers to
‘suit’ and not to all kinds of legal proceedings.
Before the promulgation of the Artha Rin Adalat Act a financial institution
such as Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation could institute a
suit in the Civil Court for realisation of its dues notwithstanding the
special provisions made for the same purpose in law by which the said
Corporation was established.
The purpose of enacting the Artha Rin Adalat Act, 1990 appears to be that
the legislature wanted to exclude the ordinary Civil Court with all its
lengthy procedures as a forum for realisation of loan given by a financial
institution and substitute in its place a Special Court, namely, the Artha
Rin Adalat, with some special procedures for the purpose of minimizing
delay but the action will nevertheless be in the form of a suit involving
all other allied laws, namely, the Court Fees Act, the Limitation Act, the
Code of Civil Procedure (to the extent made applicable).
Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation vs. Jahan Ara Akhter and
another, 16 BLD (AD) 231.
|
Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation vs. Jahan Ara Akhter and another |
16 BLD (AD) 231 |
Article 37
|
Every applicant to whom loan is sanctioned shall be required, amongst other
things, to execute a mortgage deed under HBFC. Loan Regulations, 1977.
BHBFC vs A Mannan, Advocate 41 DLR (AD) 143.
|
BHBFC vs A Mannan, Advocate |
41 DLR (AD) 143 |
Recovery of loan money—
|
Recovery of loan money by sale of mortgaged property —
Where in a case the outstanding loan money is admittedly due and the
petitioner did not contest in the misc. petition even after service of
notice, the order passed by the District Judge in accordance with the
provisions of the P.O. 7 of 1973 and having been affirmed by the High Court
Division, the apex court held the said order perfectly justified and found
nothing to interfere. Syed Ehsanul Hossain and another Vs. Bangladesh House
Building Finance Corporation 11 MLR (2006) (AD) 29.
|
Syed Ehsanul Hossain and another Vs. Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation |
11 MLR (AD) 29 |