Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD)
Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of 2003) (অর্থ ঋণ আদালত আইন) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 2(Ga) |
Whether Cash assistance can be treated as loan—Held: The High Court Division on consideration of the Provision of law section 5(GaGa) and the decision of the High Court division in DLR 104 together with the definition of the word "indemnity" in the Contract Act, 1872 and "loan" as defined in the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 together with the undertaking-cum-declaration held that the latter came within the ambit of a "contract of indemnity" as defined in section 124 of the Contract Act inasmuch as the money of 'cash assistance' given to the company product to the said indemnity falls within the definition of 'Rin' as defined in section 2(Ga) of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 as the cash assistance' was undoubtedly a "আর্থিক আনুকূল্য বা সুযোগ সুবিধা" inasmuch case' same was recorded pursuant to the "undertaking-cum-indemnity. In view of the above, we find no substance in the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners [Mr. Justice Mohammad Fazlul Karim] .....Md. Shafiul Azam vs Bangladesh, represented by the secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Bangladesh. 11 (2008) BSCD 13. |
Md. Shafiul Azam vs Bangladesh, represented by the secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Bangladesh | 11 (2008) BSCD 13 |
Section 2(Ga) |
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, [1 LM (AD) 82]
|
Islami Bank =VS= M/S Ahsanuddin Ahmed & others | 1 LM (AD) 82 |
Section 2 ka |
Section 2 ka— Whether a suit for establishment of title in respect of a
property against which a decree has been passed by the Artha Rin Adalat Ain
is maintainable of against a person, who has allegedly created some papers
and mortgaged the property with a bank and also against the mortgagee
bank.
|
9 ALR (AD) 81-94 | Md. Sekandar and another -Vs.- Janata Bank Ltd. and others |
Section 2 |
Section 2—The obligation of repayment of ‘ঋণ’ as defined in Section 2(Kha) of the Ain is of the one who has availed the same from financial institution as well as of the one who either facilitated the one to avail ‘ঋণ’ or secured repayment of the ‘ঋণ’ And only these categories are to be held responsible in case of default in the repayment of the amount became due as against the ‘ঋণ’ availed from financial institution. Sonali Bank vs D. Serajul Hoque Chowdhury, 1 ADC (2004) 394 = 9 BLC (AD) 256. |
Sonali Bank vs D. Serajul Hoque Chowdhury | 9 BLC (AD) 256. |
Section 2(kha) |
Section 2(kha)—Definition of loan—In a suit instituted in Artha Rin Adalat for recovery of loan money the loanee and the guarantor are the necessary parties. The parties which are not necessary can be struck off under Order I rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. .....Sonali Bank vs D. Serajul Hoque Chowdhury, 9 MLR (AD) 270=9 BLC (AD) 256 |
Sonali Bank vs D. Serajul Hoque Chowdhury | 9 BLC (AD) 256 |
Section 2(Kha) |
Section 2(Kha)—Money deposited with a bank is a debt to the depositor and creates a relationship of debtor and creditor between the banker and the depositor. Attracting the prevision of section 2(Kha) of the Artha Rin Ain. 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 Industrial and Agricultural Investment Company Ltd vs Eastern Bank Ltd. 5 BLC (AD) 51. |
Saudi Bangladesh Industrial and Agricultural Investment Company Ltd vs Eastern Bank Ltd | 5 BLC (AD) 51 |
Section 2(Kha) |
Section 2(Kha)—It cannot be said that defendant Nos.3 and 4 obtained loan from the Bank or received any financial facilities from the Bank and that they are also not the guarantors in respect of the loan made available by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. .....Sonali Bank vs Md. Sirajul Hoque Chowdhury, 14 BLT (2006) AD 128=9 BLC (AD) 256 |
Sonali Bank vs Md. Sirajul Hoque Chowdhury | 9 BLC (AD) 256 |
Section 2 |
Section 2—A subordinate Judge acting as an Artha Rin Adalat cannot entertain such an application directly, [The Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Order, 1972 (PO 128 of 1972)] .....Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha vs Fashion Wear Limited, 6 BLT (AD) 124. |
Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha vs Fashion Wear Limited | 6 BLT (AD) 124 |
Section 2 |
Section 2—Bank's jurisdiction to sell mortgaged property of the borrower directly under Article 34 of the order. [The Bangladesh Shilpa Bank Order, 1972 (PO 129 of 1972)]. .....Fairtech Limited vs Bangladesh Shilpa Bank Ltd., 10 BLD (AD) 226 = 42 DLR (AD) 216. |
Fairtech Limited vs Bangladesh Shilpa Bank Ltd. | 42 DLR (AD) 216 |
Sections 2 (Kha) and 5(1) |
Sections 2 (Kha) and 5(1)—Only those suits which are concerned with the realisation of "loan" as defined in the Act and as disbursed by the financial institution can be filed in the Artha Rin Adalat, no other kind of suit. .....Sultana Jute Mills Ltd. vs Agrani Bank, 46 DLR (AD) 174. |
Sultana Jute Mills Ltd. vs Agrani Bank | 46 DLR (AD) 174 |
Sections 4(4)(7) and 5(1)(5)(6) |
Sections 4(4)(7) and 5(1)(5)(6)—The order of attachment before judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge acting as a Judge of Artha Rin Adalat without having any power and jurisdiction being coram non judice has been passed without lawful authority and jurisdiction. .....One Bank Ltd vs Chaya Developer (Pvt) Ltd. 21 BLC (AD) 203. |
One Bank Ltd vs Chaya Developer (Pvt) Ltd | 21 BLC (AD) 203 |
Sections 4(2), 4(3) |
Sections 4(2), 4(3)—The Judge of the Artha Rin Adalat originally was subordinate Judge, later redesignated as Joint District Judge and that the aforesaid Judge was appointed by the President and the control and discipline of the subordinate Court as envisaged in Article 116 of the Constitution very much vest in the President and in case of posting, as in the present case, the Supreme Court has been consulted and the action in question has been taken with the approval of the President as evident from the gazetted notification. .....A.R.A Jule Mills Limited vs Janata Bank 26 BLD (AD) 97—58 DLR (AD) 126. |
A.R.A Jule Mills Limited vs Janata Bank | 26 BLD (AD) 97—58 DLR (AD) 126 |
Section 4(5) |
Section 4(5) read with Order VII, Rule 11, CPC—It appears that the Judge of the Artha Rin Adalat in question is Joint District Judge appointed in the post by transferring him by notification under the Order of the President and in consultation with the Supreme Court and the notification being published in the Gazette. There is thus no substance in the submission of the petitioner as to absence of jurisdiction of the Judge to hold the post. .....ARA Jute Mills Ltd Vs. Janata Bank, 58 DLR (AD) 126. |
A.R.A Jule Mills Limited vs Janata Bank | 58 DLR (AD) 126 |
Section 5(4) |
Under section 5(4) of the Ain, the Artha Rin Adalat is a Civil Court and subject to the provisions of the Ain, the Artha Rin Adalat have all the powers and jurisdictions under the Code of Civil Procedure. .....SM Masud Hasan @ Masud vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat (Civil), 25 BLC (AD) 42 |
SM Masud Hasan @ Masud vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat | 25 BLC (AD) 42 |
Sections 5(4), 5(5) and 6(Ka) |
Since 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 Civil Court following the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure insofar 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 cannot, 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. .....Harun-al-Rashid Mollah vs Bangladesh, 12 BLC (AD) 153. |
Harun-al-Rashid Mollah vs Bangladesh | 12 BLC (AD) 153 |
Section 5(5) |
The Artha Rin Adalat Ain is a special legislation providing for special measures to realise loans given by financial institutions. Section 5(4) of the Act gives Artha Rin Adalat the powers and jurisdiction of a Civil Court, but subject to the provisions of the Act itself. Section 5(5) of the Act makes the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the proceedings of the Artha Rin Adalat but only if the Ain does not contain anything different. .....SM Masud Hasan @ Masud vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat (Civil), 25 BLC (AD) 42 |
SM Masud Hasan @ Masud vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat | 25 BLC (AD) 42 |
Section 5 |
Artha Rin Adalat is not a full-fledged Civil Court with all the powers and jurisdiction of a Civil Court. It is a Civil Court of a defined and limited jurisdiction. .....Sultana Jute Mills Lad vs Agrani Bank 14 BLD (AD) 196=46 DLR (AD) 174. |
Sultana Jute Mills Lad vs Agrani Bank | 14 BLD (AD) 196=46 DLR (AD) 174 |
Section 5(1)(4), 2(Kha)(ka) and 5, 6, 7 |
That the defendant has a right to file a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1.C.P.C as this procedural right is not inconsistent with the Adalat Act, but the defendant has no procedural right to claim as set off or counterclaim under Rule 6 in a suit under the Adalat Act in whatever form, as Rule 6 is inconsistent with the jurisdictional provisions of the Adalat Act. The High Court Division was right in its reasoning that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. .....Sultana Jute Mills Ltd vs Agrani Bank, 2 ADC (2005) 149=46 DLR (AD) 174. |
Sultana Jute Mills Ltd vs Agrani Bank | 149=46 DLR (AD) 174 |
Section 5(3) |
The contention of the learned Advocate of the petitioner that having the first charge over the mortgaged property the petitioner is a necessary. party in the subsequent suit filed by the respondent No. 2, is not tenable in the eye of law as in subsequent suit the only issue for adjudication is whether the respondent No. 4 owes any money to the respondent No. 2 and to adjudicate this issue the presence of the petitioner is not necessary at all and the petitioner can make prayer to the Artha Rin Adalat concerned at proper stage for satisfaction of its decrectal amount first from the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged properties in question and the Artha Rin Adalat concerned may consider that prayer under section 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. .....The City Bank ltd. vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 6 ADC 563; 17 BLT (AD) 209. |
The City Bank ltd. vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat | 17 BLT (AD) 209 |
Section 5(4)(5) |
According to sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Act the Artha Rin Adalat is a civil Court having all the powers and jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, subject to the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (5) of section 5 thereof makes the provisions of the said provisions of the said Code applicable, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to the conduct of proceedings in an Artha Rin Adalat, Order 9, Rule 9 an integral part of the Code. There is no specific bar to an application under Order 9 Rule 9 in the cases under the Act. .....Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited vs Al-Haj Md. Shafiuddin Howlader, 20 BLD (AD) 162 = 52 DLR (AD) 176. |
Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited vs Al-Haj Md. Shafiuddin Howlader | 20 BLD (AD) 162 = 52 DLR (AD) 176 |
Sections 5(4), 33(5) & 57 |
Held—It appears that the decree of Foreclosure in favour of the plaintiff attained its finality and the judgment debtor shall have no right to redeem the said mortgage property. Moreover after issuance of the certificate under section 33(5) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain the 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 property registered sale deed and therefore there is no scope to interfere with the bonafide purchase for value. .....Sonali Bank vs Mrs. Hazera Islam, 6 ADC 975. |
Sonali Bank vs Mrs. Hazera Islam | 6 ADC 975 |
Sections 5(4) and 5(5) |
The Artha Rin Adalat Ain is a special legislation providing for special measures to realize loans given by financial institutions." .....Sultana Jute Mills Ltd. vs. Agrani Bank, 14 BLD (AD) 196 = 46 DLR (AD) 174. |
Sultana Jute Mills Ltd. vs. Agrani Bank | 14 BLD (AD) 196 = 46 DLR (AD) 174 |
Sections 5(4) and 5(5) |
The law is now settled that since specific provision for appeal has been made against the judgement and decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat no application under Article 102 lies against such judgement and decree. .....Gazi M Towfic vs. Agrani Bank, 54 DLR (AD) 6. |
Gazi M Towfic vs. Agrani Bank | 54 DLR (AD) 6 |
Sections 5(4) and 5(5) |
There being specific remedy in the statute for filing appeal against the judgment and decree of the Artha Rin Adalat in the present case the defendant not availing of the aforesaid remedy cannot maintain the writ petitions." .....Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation (BADC) vs Artha Rin Adalat, 59 DLR (AD) 6. |
Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation (BADC) vs Artha Rin Adalat | 59 DLR (AD) 6 |
Sections 5(6) |
In view of the said provisions, the position is that a financial institution may institute a suit in connection with realisation of loan in the Artha Rin Adalat under the Act and by reason of the proviso to section 5(1) the special provision or procedure for realisation of loan provided in law by which the financial institution is established will not be affected. The option is with the financial institution either-to bring a suit under section 5(1) of the Act or take recourse to the special procedure provided in the relevant law. .....BHBFC vs Jahanara Akhtar, 49 DLR (AD) 80. |
BHBFC vs Jahanara Akhtar | 49 DLR (AD) 80 |
Sections 5(6) |
As far as the present case is concerned the appellant already brought the proceedings under article 27 of President's Order No. 7 of 1973. these proceedings cannot be transferred to the Artha Rin Adalat which has jurisdiction to try a suit and not proceedings under article 27. Notwithstanding the promulgation of the Act, the proceedings under article 27 can continue. .....BHBFC vs. Jahanara Akhtar, 49 DLR (AD) 80. |
BHBFC vs Jahanara Akhtar | 49 DLR (AD) 80 |
Sections 5(10) |
Transfer of execution case from one Artha Rin Adalat to another Artha Rin Adalat in the same district has not been interfered with both by the High Court division and the Appellate Division. .....Uttara Steel Corporation Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat, 13 MLR (AD) 266. |
Uttara Steel Corporation Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat | 13 MLR (AD) 266 |
Section 5 |
The Artha Rin Adalat Act, 1990 to be a special procedural law rather than a sub-stantive law affecting the rights of the parties. It was submitted that where parties have agreed that a foreign law governs a dispute, capacity to sue is governed either by the law of the domicile of the plaintiff, which in this case is Washington D.C., U.S.A., or the governing law of the agreement, which in this is alleged to be English law, and not the law of the forum where the suit is brought to resolve the dispute. .....Mustaque Alam Chowdhury vs. The Court of Joint District and 2nd Artha Rin Adalat (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 4 ADC 906 |
Mustaque Alam Chowdhury vs. The Court of Joint District and 2nd Artha Rin Adalat | 4 ADC 906 |
Section 5(4), 33(5), 57 |
Artha Jari Case Petitioners under section 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. .....Sonali Bank, Sadarghat Corporate Branch vs. Mrs. Ilazera Islam (Md. Abdul Matin J) (Civil) 6 ADC 975 |
Sonali Bank, Sadarghat Corporate Branch vs. Mrs. Ilazera Islam (Md. Abdul Matin J) | 6 ADC 975 |
Section 5(4) |
In a case where an auction purchaser fails to deposit the money within fifteen days, there is an imperative duty cast upon the executing court itself to set aside that sale and to order resale of the property". Order XXI, rule 85 of the Code requires that the full amount of the purchase-money shall be paid by the auction purchaser into Court before the Court close on the 15th day from the sale of the property. Rule 86 also requires that in default of payment with- in the period mentioned in the last pre- ceding rule, the deposit may, if the Court thinks fit after defraying the expenditure, be forfeited to the Government and the property shall be resold. When the default is made in depositing the balance of the amount as required by Rule 81, the Court ought to order the re-sale of the property. .....S.M. Masud Hasan vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No.3, Dhaka (Hasan Foez Siddique J) (Civil) 16 ADC 366 |
S.M. Masud Hasan vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No.3, Dhaka | 16 ADC 366 |
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]
|
M/S. Motazzerul Islam (Mithu) =VS= ICB Islami Bank Ltd. | 9 LM (AD) 255 |
Section 5 |
There is no bar to realize the loan amount by any financial institution by producing post-dated cheques for encashment. .....Ehetasamul Haque vs State (Criminal) 24 BLC (AD) 43 |
Ehetasamul Haque vs State | 24 BLC (AD) 43 |
Section 6 |
The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
|
Eastern Bank Limited =VS= Sirajuddula(Md) | 9 LM (AD) 566 |
Sections 6, 12, 27, 33 and 38 |
Realization of loan money—
|
Midland Bank Limited -Vs.- Nasima Aktar and others | 27 ALR (AD) 211 |
Sections 6(5) and 34(1) |
Sections 6(5) and 34(1)— Civil prison in connection with Artha Execution
Case—
|
Rupali Bank Limited -Vs.- Mahmuda Jaman, and others | 28 ALR (AD)101 |
Section 6(5), 12(8) |
The auction of the mortgaged property–– The High Court Division upon
taking consideration of the above provision of law coupled with the facts
and circumstances of the present case has been held to the effect. “In
our considered view, this provision is applicable only when the properties
were mortgaged both by the principal debtor/loanee and the third party
mortgagor. In the instant case, admittedly no property was mortgaged by the
principal debtor-loanee but the property was mortgaged by the petitioner.
So, in absence of any other property mortgaged by the principal debtor in
favour of the Bank, the mortgaged property of the
petitioner-judgment-debtor is to be sold to realize the decreetal amount.
Therefore, the Adalat was bound to sale the mortgaged property which was
included in the schedule of the plaint/decree.” ––The judgment-debtor
did not mortgage any property to the bank rather than the present appellant
mortgaged his property as a guarantor and thus, no illegality has been
committed in putting the auction of the mortgaged property of the present
appellant. .....Abdus Sattar Miah =VS= Bangladesh, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM
(AD) 461]
|
Abdus Sattar Miah =VS= Bangladesh | 13 LM (AD) 461 |
Section 6(5) |
Unnecessary parties in a Artha Rin suit can well be struck off under Or. I, r. 10(2) of the Code of the Civil Procedure. .....Sonali Bank vs Sirajul Hoque. 9 MLR (AD) 270 = 9 BLC (AD) 256. |
Sonali Bank vs Sirajul Hoque | 9 MLR (AD) 270 = 9 BLC (AD) 256 |
Section 6(5) |
A suit under the provisions of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 a company incorporated under the Companies Act is a juristic person. A share-holder is not the owner of the company or its assets. The company itself owns its properties. A share-holder is only entitled to the dividends, if declared. On winding up however, after payment of its debts, he is entitled to participate in the distribution of its assets. The liability of a share-holder, whether he is the Chairman of the Board of Directors, or a director, is only to the extent of the face value of the shares he holds, nothing more than that. But, if he guarantees repayment of the loan, enjoyed by the company or mortgages his property to the creditor to ensure repayment of the loan by the company to make such repayment, he becomes liable, not as a share-holder but as a guarantor or mortgagor or both as the case may be. .....Bakul Akter vs Bangladesh, 18 BLT (AD) 282=16 BLC (AD) 4. |
Bakul Akter vs Bangladesh | 18 BLT (AD) 282=16 BLC (AD) 4 |
Sections 6 and 7 |
Sections 6 and 7—The proceeding initiated by filing a cross-objection is in substance an appeal—the respondent is liable to pay necessary court-fee and observe other formalities necessary for preferring an appeal. Cross-objection filled beyond 30 days was rightly rejected. The cited case AIR 1931 Cal. 100 has no relevance. .....Zahirul Islam vs National Bank Ltd, 46 DLR (AD) 110 |
Zahirul Islam vs National Bank Ltd | 46 DLR (AD) 110 |
Section 6(5) |
Third party–
|
Sekandar (Md.) =VS= Janata Bank Ltd. | 3 LM (AD) 448 |
Sections 6 and 47 |
Sections 6 and 47—The provision of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the
Aura Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 is not a mere guideline and directory. A plaint
of an Aha Rin Suit has to be filed along with advalorem court fee.
|
MA Bari Talukder vs Agrani Bank | 8 ADC 424 |
Sections 6 and 47 |
There is no scope to argue that a plaint of Artha Rin Suit even if not filed along with the affidavit and the advalorem Court-fee as mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 can be registered as a Artha Rin Suit. The very language of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, in our opinion, makes it mandatory that a plaint of a Artha Rin Suit has to be filed along with advalorem Court-fee. Specially where the question of applicability of section 47 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 comes the provision sub-section (2) of section 6 has to be followed strictly. .....MA Bari Talukder vs Agrani Bank, 8 ADC 424. |
MA Bari Talukder vs Agrani Bank | 8 ADC 424 |
Section 6(5), 12, 33 |
The guarantor judgment-debtor has no authority to file any application
before the Artha Rin Adalat to set aside the order amending the schedule of
the property in execution case as it has been done at the instance of
principal judgment-debtor. The High Court Division has also failed to
appreciate that prior to passing the decree and filing of the execution
case the alleged 05 buses were sold out by the principal judgment-debtor
himself, with the permission of the bank and sale money was adjusted with
the judgment-debtor’s loan. Thus, in this circumstances question of
following of section 33 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 does not arise at
all. The alleged buses were not auctioned neither as per provision of
section 12 as claimed by the bank nor during pendency of execution case as
per provision of section 33 of the Ain. Accordingly, the civil petition for
leave to appeal is disposed of. The impugned judgment and order of the High
Court Division is set aside. .....Midland Bank Limited =VS= Nasima Aktar,
(Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 200]
|
Midland Bank Limited =VS= Nasima Aktar | 14 LM (AD) 200 |
Sections 6(5), 34 |
Recovery of outstanding dues against the borrower along with the
guarantors–– According to Section 34 of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 the
judgment-debtors are not entitled to be released on bail unless they have
paid 25% of the decreetal amounts–– The writ-petitioners are not
entitled to be released on bail unless they deposit 25% of the total
decreetal amount and also execute a bond to the effect that they will pay
the rest of the decreetal amount within next 90(ninety) days. But in the
cases in hand, the High Court Division without complying with aforesaid
provisions of law, most illegally released the writ-petitioners on bail. In
doing so, the High Court Division flouted the categorical provisions of law
as stated in Section 34 of Ain, 2003. ––All the Rules issued by the
High Court Division in Writ Petitions No.11693-11696 of 2022 are
discharged. The respondents No.2-4 in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal
No.2884 of 2022, and the respondent No.1 in Civil Petitions for Leave to
Appeal No.2884-2887 of 2022 are directed to surrender before the concerned
Artha Rin Adalat at once. .....Rupali Bank Limited =VS= Mahmuda Jaman,
(Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 240]
|
Rupali Bank Limited =VS= Mahmuda Jaman | 14 LM (AD) 240 |
Section 6(1) |
This provision makes the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the proceeding of the Artha Rin Adalat, but only if, the Adalat act does not contain anything different. .....Sultana Jute Mills Ltd vs Agrani Bank, 46 DLR (AD) 174. |
Sultana Jute Mills Ltd vs Agrani Bank | 46 DLR (AD) 174 |
Sections 6(3) and 57 |
Section 6(5) of the Ain and Order I, rule 10 of the Code have got no relevancy in connection with a disposed of suit. 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 re-open the decree after dispose of the suit. .....Parvin Akter vs Eastern Bank Ltd., 70 DLR (AD) 117. |
Parvin Akter vs Eastern Bank Ltd | 70 DLR (AD) 117 |
Section 6(Ka) |
Application of CPC—A woman judgment-debtor—Held: Artha Rin Adalat shall follow and apply the Code of Civil Procedure as a Civil Court in exercising its jurisdiction, powers and functions while adjudicating any dispute between the parties before it including execution of its decree insofar as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of section 6 (Ka) or any other provision of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain. 1990, Section 6 (Ka), in our view, has excluded the operation of Rules 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in matters of execution of any decree. In other words, Artha Rin Adalat shall execute its decree applying the provisions of sections 55 and 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with order 21 and the rules made thereunder except the Rules 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Application of section 56 of the Code, in our view, has not been excluded by section 6 (Ka). .....Hazera Begum vs Artha Rin Adalat,. 11 (2008) BSCD 14. |
Hazera Begum vs Artha Rin Adalat | 11 (2008) BSCD 14 |
Section 6 |
That cause of action for filing the suit by the appellant has arisen because of the decree passed in Artha Rin Adalat Case No. 55 of 1990 and the execution taken on the basis of the said decree ending in sale of the property of the appellant in auction and purchases thereof by the Respondent No. 3. .....Md Habibur Rahman vs Uttara Bank Ltd. 3 ADC (2006) 154. |
Md Habibur Rahman vs Uttara Bank Ltd | 3 ADC (2006) 154 |
Sections 6, 6(2) & 7(2) |
Deposit of 50% of the decretal amount is mandatory.—Held—Section 7(2) of the Artha Rin Ain clearly provided for on 7(2) of the Artha R deposit of 50% of the decretal money in the trial court as a mandatory condition precedent of filing an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Artha Rin Adalat and the learned Judges of the High Court Division fell into a serious error of law in directing registration of the appeal without such 'Money' deposit: that the question involved in this petition as to whether furnishing of bank guarantee, in lieu of deposit of decretal 'Money' can be construed as sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 7(2) of the said Ain and the same is a question of great public importance, particularly, in view of the conflicting decisions given by two Division Benches of the High Court Division on the same question. [Mr. Justice Mohammad Fazlul Karim] .....The State Bank of India vs Saudi-Bangladesh Industrial and investment Co. Ltd. 6 ADC 37. |
The State Bank of India vs Saudi-Bangladesh Industrial and investment Co. Ltd | 6 ADC 37 |
Sections 6 |
In the background of facts of the cases referred to by appellant the Division made therein in our view is not legally sound since evidence as regarded the case of the parties would easily, readily, timely and conveniently available at the place where the goods was delivered i. e. at the port city. Moreover cause of action wholly arose where the goods said to have been delivered after inordinate delay. As has already been mentioned the intent and purport of the provisions of section 20 CPC are that suit is to be filed at a place where defendant would be able to defend the suit without undue trouble. Md. .....Habibur Rahman vs M/S. Uttara Bank Ltd. (Md. Ruhul Amin J) 3 ADC 438. |
Habibur Rahman vs M/S. Uttara Bank Ltd | 3 ADC 438 |
Section 6(5) |
Under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 the District Judge has neither any authority to appoint the Judge for Artha Rin Adalat nor any Judge either below or above the rank of Joint District Judge can ever be entitled to be appointed as a Judge of the said Court and that it is only the Government in consultation with the Supreme Court can appoint the Judge for the said Court from those Judges belonging to the rank of Joint District Judge. .....One Bank Ltd vs. Chaya Developer (Pvt) Ltd (Md. Muzammel Hossain CJ) (Civil) 12 ADC 604 |
One Bank Ltd vs. Chaya Developer (Pvt) Ltd | 12 ADC 604 |
Section 6(5) |
The Code of Civil Procedure
|
One Bank Ltd. =VS= Chaya Developer (Pvt.) Ltd. | 14 LM (AD) 482 |
Section 6 |
The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
|
Eastern Bank Limited =VS= Sirajuddula(Md) | 9 LM (AD) 566 |
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]
|
Agrani Bank =VS= Hosne Ara Begum(Mrs.) | 9 LM (AD) 590 |
Section 6(5) r/w sec. 19 |
Addition of party– In the instant case the petitioner’s interest in the
property in suit has been created by auction purchase through Court in due
process of law much earlier to filing of the Miscellaneous Case under
section 19 of the Ain and after the decree was made final. Thus ultimately
the Court will have to decide the fate of the property. The Court’s
decision is bound to have a bearing on the title of the property, and will
impact the petitioner’s lawful purchase of the property through process
of the Court. This aspect has not been considered by the High Court
Division when passing the impugned judgement and order.
|
Ali Noor(Md.) =VS= Salim @ Masud Hasan | 11 LM (AD) 64 |
Section 7 |
There being specific remedy in the statute for filing appeal against the judgement and decree of the Artha Rin Adalat in the present case the defendant not availing of the aforesaid remedy cannot maintain the writ petitions. .....Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation vs. Artha Rin Adalat, 59 DLR (AD) 6. |
Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation vs. Artha Rin Adalat | 59 DLR (AD) 6 |
Section 7 |
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Judges of the High Court Division ought to have treated that the legal decree in the instant suit had been prepared and singed by the trial Court on 3.9.96 when the original decree was correct upon realization of deficit court fees from the plaintiff decree holders on the direction of the High Court Division and in that view of the matter, the appeal of the appellants in the High Court Division was neither barred by limitation nor improper for not making the required deposit of at least 50% of the decretal amount in the trial court as per provision of Section 7 of the Ordinance. .....ACKO Industries and Cold Storage Ltd vs Pubali Bank 2 ADC (2005) 380. |
ACKO Industries and Cold Storage Ltd vs Pubali Bank | 2 ADC (2005) 380 |
Section 7 |
Where substituted service was done by publication in the newspaper, the presumption of the service cannot be rebutted by making simple statement. .....Parvin Akter vs Eastern Bank Ltd., 70 DLR (AD) 117. |
Parvin Akter vs Eastern Bank Ltd | 70 DLR (AD) 117 |
Section 7(2) |
Section 7(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain provides that within 30 days from the date of making the decree the appeal is to be filed before the High Court Division and sub-section (2) of section 7 provides that no appeal shall be entertained unless half of the decretal amount is deposited in the court making the decree. Section 7 of the Ain nowhere speaks about bank guarantee. The expression AbN used in subsection (2) of section 7 of the Act can not be construed to be "Bank Guarantee". The expression AbN as used in this sub-section means cash money and not "Bank Guarantee". .....Abdus Sattar vs International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd. 21 BLD (AD) 77 = 52 DLR (AD) 122. |
Abdus Sattar vs International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd | 21 BLD (AD) 77 = 52 DLR (AD) 122 |
Section 7 |
Application for stay of the execution proceeding under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. .....Messers Shahajan Traders and another vs. Subordinate Judge and Artha Rin Adalat No.1 (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 4 ADC 564 |
Messers Shahajan Traders and another vs. Subordinate Judge and Artha Rin Adalat No.1 | 4 ADC 564 |
Section 7 |
Section 7—Any person may move the High Court Division under Article 102
of the Constitution if any other equally efficacious remedy is not
available in the law of the country. But on perusal of Section 7 it appears
that there is equally efficacious remedy available to the defendant
petitioner and nothing has been mentioned what prevented the defendant
petitioner from preferring the appeal as provided by law. There being
specific remedy in the statute for filing appeal against the judgment and
decree of the Artha Rin Adalat in the present case the defendant not
availing of the aforesaid remedy cannot maintain the writ petitions.
Inspite of the fact that the law in the matter has been settled long back
petitions are unnecessarily filed under Article 102 of the Constitution
challenging the judgment of the Artha Rin Adalat without making any case
covered under the aforesaid Article not to speak of any ground touching
fundamental rights of the petitioner. As a result the superior courts are
burdened with unnecessary petitions causing wastage of public time which
should be discouraged by all concerned including the learned members of the
Bar who are as well officers of the Court. .....Bangladesh Agricultural
Development Corporation (BADC) vs Artha Rin Adalat, Court No. 3. Dhaka, 26
BLD (AD) 250 = 59 DLR (AD) 6.
|
Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation (BADC) vs Artha Rin Adalat | 59 DLR (AD) 6 |
Sections 8(2)(a)(b), 60(2)(3) and 47 |
Applicability of section 47—Section 47 cannot be given effect to any pending suit filed prior to promulgation of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. The discussions and observations as made by the High Court Division in the judgment passed by it do not suffer from any illegality or misconception of the law. .....Humayun Hossain Khan vs Bangladesh, 61 DLR (AD) 92. |
Humayun Hossain Khan vs Bangladesh | 61 DLR (AD) 92 |
Section 9 |
For realization of Tk.75,34,909.64/- by selling the mortgaged property described in the plaint. .....M/s. Aimon Electrical Industries Proprietor vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat (Md. Abdul Matin J) (Civil) 7 ADC 964 |
M/s. Aimon Electrical Industries Proprietor vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat | 7 ADC 964 |
Sections 9 and 11 |
Sections 9 and 11—Additional written statement—Held—The Court, under
sub-section 4 of section 9 of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, may accept the same
against C.P. cost and further section 11 of the above Ain has specifically
made provision for reply of the plaintiff against the written statement but
there is no scope in the said Artha Rin Adalat Ain for filing additional
written statement. .....[Mr. Justice Md. Tafazzul Islam] Md. Nurul Hoque
Sarker vs Janata Bank, Tan Bazar Branch, Narayangonj, 6 ADC 142.
|
[Mr. Justice Md. Tafazzul Islam] Md. Nurul Hoque Sarker vs Janata Bank, Tan Bazar Branch, Narayangonj | 6 ADC 142. |
Section 11 |
Section 11—Section 11 of the above Ain has specifically made provision
for reply of the plaintiff against the written statement but there is scope
in the said Artha Rin Adalat Ain for filing additional written statement
and in the case of Sultana Jute Mills Ltd. vs Agrani Bank reported in 46
DLR (AD) 174 similar principle has been laid down. .....Md. Nurul Hoque
Sarker vs Janata Bank, 6 ADC 142
|
Md. Nurul Hoque Sarker vs Janata Bank | 6 ADC 142 |
Section 11(1)(2) |
Section 11(1)(2)—The suit has been filed prior to promulgation of Artha
rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and thus there is no bar in proceeding with the suit
without sale of the pledged goods and adjustment of the sale proceeds
thereof with the claim amount in the suit. .....United Leather
International vs Artha Rin Adalat, 17 BLT (AD) 204
|
United Leather International vs Artha Rin Adalat | 17 BLT (AD) 204. |
Section 12(3) |
The writ petitioners filed instant writ petition challenging the
auction notice issued by a private bank, against which, the writ petition
is not maintainable–– It appears that the auction was held on
08.07.2010 and the auction purchaser writ respondent No.5 was the
highest bidder and he offered a sum of taka 6,21,00,000/- which
was the highest offer and the same was accepted on 12.07.2010. The writ
petitioners filed the instant writ petition on 07.09.2014 but they
did not challenge the auction though same was held at about 3(three)
years before filing of the instant writ petition. ––Accordingly, the
appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 09.08.2015 passed by the
High Court Division in Writ Petition No.8202 of 2014 is hereby set aside.
.....Feroz Alom =VS= Syed Akhlaque Hossain, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD)
420]
|
Feroz Alom =VS= Syed Akhlaque Hossain | 15 LM (AD) 420 |
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—
|
Zinnatul Ara and others Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others | 15 MLR (AD) 185 |
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. |
Zinnatul Ara vs Bangladesh | 15 BLC (AD) 168 |
Section 12(8), 33(5), 33(7) & 57 |
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–– Law has given a
protection to a purchaser in a execution process. Right, title and interest
conferred upon the purchaser for value cannot be called in question. If any
illegality or irregularity is found in process of sell, the judgment debtor
may claim compensation from the decree holder-Bank.–– 6 ADC, Page-975,
wherein Appellate Division has observed that- “It appears that 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.” .....Hamiduzzaman(Md.)
=VS= Artha Rin Adalat, Faridpur, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 127]
|
Hamiduzzaman(Md.) =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, Faridpur | 13 LM (AD) 127 |
Section 12 |
Challenged the legality of the notice... auction sale of the properties of
the petitioners.
|
Mrs. Zinnatul Ara vs. Government of the People's | 7ADC 901 |
Section 12(3) |
It cannot be said that unless and until mortgaged property is not sold in
auction as per sub-section 1 of section 12 of the Ain, 2003 the
Bank/financial institution(s) is precluded to file any suit, in other words
selling the mortgaged property before institution of the Artha Rin Suit is
not sino qua non.
Whether a defaulter borrower can seek direction upon the plaintiff
regarding the procedure that will be taken in realization of loan. The
answer is simply ‘no’. A borrower defendant cannot dictate the
plaintiff as to his course of action for realization of loan.
|
Sulaiman Rubel =VS= Dr. Kazi Sirajul Islam | 30 ALR (AD) 14 |
Section 12(3) |
Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
|
Denim Attires Ltd. =VS= Iffat Obaid | 12 LM (AD) 243 |
Section 12(8) |
The judgment-debtor did not mortgage any property to the bank rather than
the present appellant mortgaged his property as a guarantor and thus, no
illegality has been committed in putting the auction of the mortgaged
property of the present appellant.
|
Abdus Sattar Miah -Vs.- Bangladesh and others | 27 ALR (AD) 296 |
Sections 12(2), 12(6), 51, 57 and 60 |
Section 12(6) of the Ain, 2003 the Artha Rin Adalat on its own initiative
or on the basis of the application of the borrower can deduct the value of
the goods shown, any, by the borrower at the time of decreeing the suit–
Application filed under Sections 12(2) and 51 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain,
2003 praying for adjustment of the outstanding loan with the sale price of
the pledged goods and thereby to fix the actual claim amount in the suit.
The Artha Rin Adalat by its Order No. 44 dated 25.10.2005 rejected the
application observing that examination of the witnesses are being in
progress and that the provision for sale of the pledge goods before filing
of the suit was not in the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 and the said
provision has been provided in Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and that the suit
has been filed prior to promulgation of Artha Rin Adalat, 2003 and thus
there is no bar in proceeding with the suit without sale of the pledged
goods and adjustment of the sale proceeds thereof with the claim amount in
the suit.
|
M/S. United Leather International =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka | 12 LM (AD) 669 |
Sections 12 and 33 |
Auction sale of the properties– It appears that in the earlier writ
petition direction was given to the BSCIC to accept the entire outstanding
dues from the petitioner if it was paid within 7 days and in the default to
proceed with the mortgage sale and admittedly the petitioner defaulted and
therefore the High Court Division committed no illegality in discharging
the Rule with direction to proceed with the auction sale. However if the
entire outstanding dues has been paid in the meantime by the petitioner
then auction sale proceeding may be dropped. .....Nurul Abedin(Md.) =VS=
Ministry of Industry, Bangladesh, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 680]
|
Nurul Abedin(Md.) =VS= Ministry of Industry, Bangladesh | 12 LM (AD) 680 |
Sections 12 and 33 |
Auction—Bid money not deposited by the party— Held: After the auction, the rest of the bid money was not deposited within the period of 10(ten) days as envisaged under sub-section 2 of section 33 of the Ain. But 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 sub-section 4 of section 12, the provisions of section 33 are not mandatory. Besides, it appears that although by an order the auction purchaser was directed to deposit the rest of the bid money but by an order dated passed by the High Court Division in the writ petition, all further actions pursuant to the impugned auction was stayed, as such/ the rest of the bid money could not be deposited in time. .....Zinnatul Ara vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, 15 BLC (AD) 168. |
Zinnatul Ara vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh | 15 BLC (AD) 168 |
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 sub-section 4 of section 12, the provisions of section 33 are not mandatory. .....Zinnatul Ara vs Bangladesh, 15 BLC (AD) 168. |
Zinnatul Ara vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh | 15 BLC (AD) 168 |
Sections 12 and 33 |
The provision of law has fixed up the liabilities of a third party guarantor. The guarantor judgment-debtor has no authority to file any application before the Adalat to set- aside the order amending the schedule of the property in execution case as it has been done at the instance of principal judgment-debtor. Question of following of section 33 of the Ain, does not arise at all. The alleged buses were not auctioned neither as per provision of section 12 as claimed by the bank nor during pendency of execution case as per provision of section 33 of the Ain. .....Midland Bank vs Nasima Aktar (Civil) 29 BLC (AD) 149. |
Midland Bank vs Nasima Aktar | 29 BLC (AD) 149 |
Section 12 |
Sale of the property in execution—Held: The procedure contained in sub-section 5 of section 6 of the Ain is applicable with regard to sell of the properties in execution of a decree in an execution proceeding. But section 12 requires a financial institution to take an initial step to liquidate the liabilities of the debtor, if possible, by selling the movable properties pledged with the bank or to sell the mortgaged properties in order to avoid filing of the suit. In case of such sale under section 12 of the Ain, the provisions of sub-section 5 of section 6 was got no manner of application. .....MA Hossain vs National Bank of Pakistan, 7 ADC 695. |
MA Hossain vs National Bank of Pakistan | 7 ADC 695 |
Sections 12(2) and 57 |
Artha Rin Case rejecting the application filed under Sections 12(2) and 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 praying for adjustment of the outstanding loan with the sale price of the pledged goods and thereby to fix the actual claim amount in the suit. .....United Leather International vs Artha Rin Adalat, 6 ADC 978 |
United Leather International vs Artha Rin Adalat | 6 ADC 978 |
Section 12(4) |
The High Court Division committed no mistake in law in holding that since the properties were moveable and hypothecated to the bank there was no necessity of obtaining any prior order of Sale. .....S. Co. Power Plant Ltd. vs Government of Bangladesh, 7 ADC 299. |
S. Co. Power Plant Ltd. vs Government of Bangladesh | 7 ADC 299 |
Section 12(8) |
Auction sale—No Question as to the irregularities in auction sale—Held: The mortgagee bank has auction sold the property following the provisions of section 12 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 since the predecessor of the leave petitioners did not respond to the demand notices sent by the bank and ignored the auction sale notice published in the National Dailies and the leave petitioners have made up with the leave petition auction sale. The writ petitioners did not disclose as to when and how the loanee or they came to know about the auction sale and also did not mention in the writ petition about the other writ petition filed two years back, being Writ Petition No. 4105 of 2005. Be that as it may as per Section 12(8) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and proviso thereof, which provided that in case of an auction sale held illegally or with irregularity, the same cannot be challenged. However, owner may sue the bank concern for any loss, if suffered because of such illegal or irregular auction sale. .....Banesa Bibi vs The Senior Vice President, 18 BLT (AD) 507 = 63 DLR (AD) 160. |
Banesa Bibi vs The Senior Vice President | 18 BLT (AD) 507 = 63 DLR (AD) 160 |
Section 12(8) |
In case of an auction sale held illegally or with irregularity, the same cannot be challenged. However, owner may sue the bank concern for any loss, if suffered because of such illegal or irregular auction sale. .....Banesa Bibi vs Senior Vice President, 63 DLR (AD) 160. |
Banesa Bibi vs Senior Vice President | 63 DLR (AD) 160 |
Section 12(8) |
Selling mortgaged property in auction phase by phase—Nobar. held: After the tender was submitted and opened for the auction sale, there is no scope to amend the same. Further there is no bar for selling the mortgaged property by the decree holder purchaser bank to realize the decreetal dues phase by phase. .....Sonali BankLtd. vs. Md Nur Habib Bappi, 16 MLR (AD) 121. |
Sonali BankLtd. vs. Md Nur Habib Bappi | 16 MLR (AD) 121 |
Section 12 |
The Petitioner mortgaged their properties in favour of National Bank of Pakistan, Agrabad Branch in order to secure the loan obtained by him. On his failure to repay, the bank published a notice in the newspapers to sell the properties mortgaged in its favour by auction on. This notice has been challenged in the writ-petition. .....MA Hossain vs National Bank of Pakistan, 7 ADC 695. |
MA Hossain vs National Bank of Pakistan | 7 ADC 695 |
Sections 12 and 33 |
Discharging the Rule arising out of Auction proceeding published in the Daily Jhanakantha on 25.04.2008 by writ respondent No.4 for selling the property of the petitioner. .....Md. Nurul Abedin vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary (Md. Abdul Matin J) (Civil) 7ADC 301 |
Md. Nurul Abedin vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary | 7ADC 301 |
Sections 12, 33 and 48 |
Considering all these aspects, since admittedly the mortgagor respondent, is still in possession of the auction sold property and since for more than 14 years the petitioner is deprived of enjoying the property after depositing the entire bid money in Court immediately after the auction sale and got the registered sale deed in his favour and since the mortgagor respondents are in possession of their ancestral property and they want to retain the same we feel it reasonable to direct the mortgagor respondent-deposit TK.40,00,000/= (Taka forty lacs) as solatium to the auction purchaser petitioner within 45 days and file compliance thereof and thereby settle the matter once for all. However, on payment of the said solatium amount of TK. 40,00,000/- by the mortgagor respondent to the auction purchaser petitioner the bank will release the property from mortgage and handover the title documents to the mortgagor and as such the auction purchaser shall have no right, title and interest on the suit property pursuant to auction sale. In case any deed of transfer is registered in favour of the auction purchaser the same will stand redundant. .....Md. Mitul Mollah vs. Abul Khayer Mollah (Mirza Hussain Hajimer J) (Civil) 17 ADC 769 |
Md. Mitul Mollah vs. Abul Khayer Mollah | 17 ADC 769 |
Sections 12 |
We are, therefore, of the considered view that justice would be best served if we direct the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Tk.20,00,000/- (Taka twenty lac) as solutium to the auction purchaser respondent No.5 as agreed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Bank respondent is directed to return the auction deposit money laying with its. The writ respondent bank if executed any deed in favour of auction purchaser shall have been deemed to be cancelled. The petitioner is directed to deposit the solutium money by 28.02.2021 in default, the order of the High Court Division shall stands valid. .....M/S Akota Saw Mill vs. Ministry of Law (Md. Nuruzzaman J) (Civil) 18 ADC 569 |
M/S Akota Saw Mill vs. Ministry of Law (Md. Nuruzzaman J) | 18 ADC 569 |
Section 12(2), 57 |
Artha Rin Case rejecting the application filed under Sections 12(2) and 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 praying for adjustment of the outstanding loan with the sale price of the pledged goods and thereby to fix the actual claim amount in the suit. .....M/S. United Leather International vs. Artha Rin Adalat (Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman J) (Civil) 6 ADC 978 |
M/S. United Leather International vs. Artha Rin Adalat (Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman J) | 6 ADC 978 |
Section 12(3) |
Article 104 of the Constitution which authorizes this Division to issue such directions, orders, decrees or writs as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. It is relevant here to mention that in the case of National Board of Revenue V. Nasrin Banu reported in 48 DLR(AD) 171, this division observed that cases may vary, situations may vary and the scale and parameter of complete justice also vary. Sometimes it may be justice according to law, sometimes it may be justice according to fairness, equity and good conscience, sometimes it may be justice tempered with mercy, sometimes it may pure commonsense, sometimes it may be the inference of an ordinary reasonable man and so on. Such provision has been incorporated in the Constitution to meet situation which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled and such power of this Division is not circumscribed by any limiting words. This Division can grant relief where any manifest illegality or palpable injustice is shown to have resulted. Functions of this Division is largely governed by its Endeavour to ensure that justice has been done. This Division plays a balancing act for protecting the litigants from unnecessary harassment. .....Denim Attires Ltd. vs. Iffat Obaid and others (Hasan Foez Siddique J) (Civil) 16 ADC 372. |
Denim Attires Ltd. vs. Iffat Obaid and others | 16 ADC 372 |
Section 12(3) |
Selling the mortgaged property–– It is undeniable fact that the Bank,
before filing the suit had taken steps as per provision of section 12(3) of
the Ain, 2003 for selling the property but auction was not done due to the
filing of the writ petition before the High Court Division by the
mortgagors. Thus, there is no room to say that Bank before filing the suit
did not take any steps to sell the mortgaged property. ––The Bank is at
liberty to sell the mortgaged property during pendency of the suit by way
of auction or negotiation with the approval of the Artha Rin Adalat and the
Adalat is at liberty to deal with the matter in accordance with the law.
.....Sulaiman Rubel =VS= Dr. Kazi Sirajul Islam, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM
(AD) 551]
|
Sulaiman Rubel =VS= Dr. Kazi Sirajul Islam | 16 LM (AD) 551 |
Sections 12(3) and 33 (1)(2)(3)(4) |
Ignoring the section 33 (1)(2)(3)(4) provisions of law the bank issued
notice for holding auction in the ‘Dainik Bhorer Kantha’ and ‘Dainik
Sangbad Protidin’two newspapers. The learned Lawyer of the bank conceded
in the High Court Division that he never heard of any such newspaper in his
entire life, that is, admittedly those two news papers are not widely
circulated national daily.
|
Denim Attires Ltd. -Vs.- Iffat Obaid and others | 2019 ALR (AD) Online 107 |
Section 13(1) and 9(5) |
Thus the Adalat considering statements made in the written statement specially the statement made in paragraph No. 8 of the written statement came to conclusion that the defendant petitioner admitted the loan and as such took up the suit for disposal under section 13 and that although the Adalat rejected the application filed by the defendant under Or. 26 r. 11 of the Code without assigning any reason but the findings arrived at as to disposal of the suit is in accordance with law and upon compliance of provisions of section 9 and 13 of the Ain 2003 and accordingly not without jurisdiction so writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. .....Md. Kamal Uddin Akanda vs Artha Rin Adalat, 6 ADC 383. |
Md. Kamal Uddin Akanda vs Artha Rin Adalat | 6 ADC 383 |
Section 13(1) |
Section 13(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 of passing the judgment and decree on the basis of the admission of the defendant petitioner in his written statement, was allowed. .....Md. Kamal Uddin Akand vs Artha Rin Adalat (Md. Tafazzul Islam J) (Civil) 6 ADC 383 |
Md. Kamal Uddin Akand vs Artha Rin Adalat | 6 ADC 383 |
Sections 18 and 9 |
Praying for a preliminary decree for Tk. 78,70,728 as on 31-10-94 with interest @ 20% per annum including penal interest as, also praying that in case of the failure of the defendant petitioner to pay the decreetal dues, to make the decree final and direct sale of mortgaged properties and also to pass a personal decree against the defendant petitioner in respect of the shortfall amount after sale of mortgaged properties. .....Md. Nurul Hoque vs Janata Bank, 6 ADC (2009) 142. |
Md. Nurul Hoque vs Janata Bank | 6 ADC (2009) 142 |
Sections 18 , 9 |
Praying for a preliminary decree for Tk.78,70,728/- as on 31.10.94 with interest @ 20% per annum including penal interest and also praying that in case of the failure of the defendant petitioner to pay the decrectal dues, to make the decree final and direct sale of mortgaged properties and also to pass a personal decree against the defendant petitioner in respect of the shortfall amount after sale of mortgaged proper-ties. .....Md. Nurul Hoque Sarker vs. Janata Bank (Md. Tafazzul Islam J) (Civil) 6 ADC 142 |
Md. Nurul Hoque vs Janata Bank | 6 ADC (2009) 142 |
Section 19 |
Section 19— Whether or not the defendant filed the application for
setting aside the ex parte decree within the time stipulated by law.
|
Mrs. Dilruba Morshed -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Chittagong and others | 13 ALR (AD) 23-28 |
Sections 19 and 41 |
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.
|
Md. Sekandar and another -Vs.- Janata Bank Ltd. and others | 9 ALR (AD) 81-94 |
Section 19 (2) |
A third party other than a mortgagor or guarantor is not entitled to make
an application for setting aside the decree.
|
Md. Sekandar and another -Vs.- Janata Bank Ltd. and others | 9 ALR (AD) 81-94 |
Section 20 |
That the suit against the petitioner was barred by limitation and in excess of the court's jurisdiction are matters to be agitated in appeal and not under the Writ jurisdiction. .....46 DLR (AD) 191; 4 BLC (AD) 178. |
46 DLR (AD) 191; 4 BLC (AD) 178 | |
Section 20 |
Separate suit to set aside ex-parte decree passed by Artha Rin Adalat will not be maintainable in view of remedy available under Artha Rin Adalat Act itself .....18 BLD (AD) 268. |
18 BLD (AD) 268 | |
Section 20 |
There being specific remedy in the statute for filing appeal against the judgment and decree of the Artha Rin Adalat, the defendant not availing of the aforesaid remedy can not maintain the writ petitions. .....BCR 2006 (AD) 189=56 DLR (AD) 06. |
BCR 2006 (AD) 189=56 DLR (AD) 06 | |
Section 20 |
Section 20—There is specific provision of law for appeal against the
judgment and decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat within 30 days of
passing thereof upon depositing 50% of the decretal dues. When such
provisions are not availed of, the writ petition there against is not
maintainable. .....AQM Shah Alam Chowdhury vs Bangladesh, 13 MLR (AD) 258 =
13 BLC (AD) 122.
|
AQM Shah Alam Chowdhury vs Bangladesh | 13 BLC (AD) 122 |
Sections 20 |
The law is settled now that no petition under Article 102(2) of the institution lies impugning the judgment and decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat in a case filed by the financial institution for realization of its loan money. .....Azad Shahnewaz vs Artha Rin Adalat, Dinajpur, 15 BLT (AD) 77. |
Azad Shahnewaz vs Artha Rin Adalat, Dinajpur | 15 BLT (AD) 77 |
Sections 20 |
A judgment-debtor is not competent to challenge the decree of the Artha Rin Adalat in writ jurisdiction unless the judgment and decree of the Adalat is without jurisdiction or in other words coram non judice or outcome of fraud committed on court and that also suffers from malafide. .....Mir Motiur Rahman Zihadi vs. Artha Rin Adalat, 15 BLT (AD) 267. |
Mir Motiur Rahman Zihadi vs. Artha Rin Adalat | 15 BLT (AD) 267 |
Sections 20 |
The writ petition is not proper course for challenging the judgment of Artha Rin in view of provision for filing appeal being provided in the statute. .....BADC vs Artha Rin Adalat, 15 BLT (AD) 363. |
BADC vs Artha Rin Adalat | 15 BLT (AD) 363 |
Sections 20 |
High Court Division held that the impugned order passed by the Artha Rin Adalat in a proceeding under Order 21, Rule 89 of Code of Civil Procedure is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and the same can in an appropriate case be dealt with by a civil court. The High Court Division further held that the order Artha Rin Adalat passed in exercise of power of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be challenged under Article 102(2) of the Constitution—We are of view that the High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision. .....Md. Mokaddas Ali vs Artha Rin Adalat, 15 BLT (AD) 237. |
Md. Mokaddas Ali vs Artha Rin Adalat | 15 BLT (AD) 237 |
Sections 20 |
Question as to whether the suit against the debtor was barred — limitation or not may be agitated in appeal and not in writ jurisdiction, .....AQM Shah Alam Chowdhury vs Bangladesh, 5 ADC 198. |
AQM Shah Alam Chowdhury vs Bangladesh | 5 ADC 198 |
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 |
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]
|
Lt. Col. M. A. Mannan (Retd.) =VS= Social Investment Bank Ltd. | 8 LM (AD) 280 |
Section 21 |
Held The High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record—arrived at a correct decision. .....M/s. Ali Reza represented by its proprietor Shikder Ali Reza, Bagerhat vs Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat, 2nd Court, Bagerhat, 15 BLT (AD) 323. |
M/s. Ali Reza represented by its proprietor Shikder Ali Reza, Bagerhat vs Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat, 2nd Court, Bagerhat | 15 BLT (AD) 323 |
Sections 21, 22, 24 and 38 |
Provision for amicable settlement for payment of outstanding dues—Held: An amicable settlement for payment of outstanding dues under the Ain of 2003 can be effected in three stages of a proceedings; the first stage is provided in sections 21 and 22 which can be done at the pretrial stage and the procedure is provided in section 24; the second stage is under section 38 after passing a decree and during the pendency of the execution proceedings; and the last stage is under section 45, which enjoins a borrower or any other defaulter or a judgment-debtor to settle up the dispute at any stage of the proceedings. Fariduddin Mahmud vs Md Saidur Rahman, 63 DLR (AD) 93. |
Fariduddin Mahmud vs Md Saidur Rahman | 63 DLR (AD) 93 |
Sections 21, 22, 38 and 45 |
If the decree holder is satisfied with the terms of compromise and
volunteers that it has compromised the dispute, the Court is left with no
option but to accept the prayer and pass necessary order for compromise.
|
Lt Col. MA Mannan (Retd.) vs Social Investment Bank Ltd | 31 BLD (AD) 124 |
Section 26 |
Section 26—Filing objection against inadequacy of price or for any other
causes: Held: Section 26 of the Ain provides that the procedure provided
for execution of a proceeding in the Code of Civil Procedure will be
applicable if those provisions are not inconsistent with it. Since there is
no provision in Chapter VI of the Ain for filing objection against
inadequacy of price or for any other causes as provided in Rules 89, 90 and
91 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside a sale,
those provisions of the Code are applicable in execution proceedings.
.....Fariduddin Mahmud vs Md Saidur Rahman, 63 DLR (AD) 93.
|
Fariduddin Mahmud vs Md Saidur Rahman | 63 DLR (AD) 93 |
Section 27 |
When execution case is not premature—Held: The learned Counsel appearing for the added respondent concedes that on 7-2-2007 the application for revival of the execution case was premature but on 22-7-2007 when admittedly the present petitioner judgment debtor admitted that the decreetal amount was not paid and prayed for time the execution case became a mature one because it was long after 12 months and therefore the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance. We find substance in the submission of Mr Mahmudul Islam and hold that "the execution case was not at all premature. The next contention that the executing court had no authority to pass the impugned order has been correctly decided by the High Court Division holding that the Learned Additional District Judge did not adjudicate in the matter and he only allowed certain adjournments and issued notices and subsequently he was replaced by the District Judge as Artha Rin Adalat and therefore the allegation that the court had no jurisdiction has been rightly rejected by the High Court Division. [Mr Justice Md Abdul Matin] .....MA Salam and Co. vs Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited represented by its Executive Vice President, 6 ADC 797. |
MA Salam and Co. vs Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited represented by its Executive Vice President | 6 ADC 797 |
Section 27 |
The auction sale alleging that the price which was accepted was shocking
low bit—The executing court rejected the said prayer.
|
M/s International Trade Promotors vs The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka | 17BLT (AD) 306 |
Section-27(1) read with Section 60(3) |
As section 33(5) or similar provision as in that section of 2003 Ain was
not present in the Ain of 1990, that section cannot be now invoked as the
execution case was filed before the Ain of 2003 came into force and that
since the subject decree was passed by a civil court in a title suit the
same was not executable by an Artha Rin Adalat as contented by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner
|
Shahidul Islam & Ors Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Ors | 24BLT (AD) 435 |
Section 28 |
After taking three adjournments on the 4th date on 22.04.2003 the decree holder bank filed the certified copy of the decree and also the vakalatnama of the respondent bank and hence the exe¬cution case having been filed long after two and half years is hopelessly barred by limitation and as such are liable to be rejected as per provisions of Section 28 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. .....Nasir Hossain Chakladar vs. Joint District Judge (Md. Abdul Matin J) (Civil) 6 ADC 302 |
Nasir Hossain Chakladar vs. Joint District Judge (Md. Abdul Matin J) | 6 ADC 302 |
Section 28, 29, 49 |
Sections 28 and 29 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 for dismissing the Execution Case on the ground of limitation. .....M/S M.M. Steel & Limited vs. The Judge, First Artha Rin Adalat (Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman J) (Civil)..... ADC 875 |
M/S M.M. Steel & Limited vs. The Judge, First Artha Rin Adalat | ADC 875 |
Sections 28, 29 and 49(3) |
Learned Judge of the Artha Rin Adalat has rightly rejected the petitioner's
prayer for dismissal of the execution case on the ground of limitation–
In the decree there is no mention of any specific date or period on which
the installments were to be paid. Since in the decree no specific date has
been mentioned for payment of the installments and the judgment debtor were
allowed to make the payment of the decreetal amount in installments, which
is in fact a facility given to the judgment debtor to make the payment of
the decreetal amount in part, instead of making the payment of the
decreetal amount at a time, and there being no mention of specific dates
for payment of the installments the judgment debtors were allowed to make
the payment of the decreetal amount within one year in four installments
and thus the mode of payment of installments was made flexible. In the
premises, in the instant case, Appellate Division is of the view that the
reasons given by the High Court Division, therefore no interference is
called for. .....M/S M.M. Steel Mills Limited =VS= First Artha Rin Adalat,
Chittagong, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 579]
|
M/S M.M. Steel Mills Limited =VS= First Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong | 12 LM (AD) 579 |
Sections 28/37/27 and 57 |
Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
|
Nasir Hossain Chaklader =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka | 12 LM (AD) 641 |
Sections 28 and 33 |
Whether an Artha decree execution case is disposed of after issuance of
certificates either under Sections 33(5) or 33(7) of the Artha Rin Adalat
Ain, 2003 even without delivery of possession of the property in respect of
which such certificates were issued;
|
A.R. Jafar Sadek -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and others | 16 ALR (AD) 265-272 |
Section 28 |
Barred by limitation—Held: After taking three adjournments on the 4th date on 22-4-2003 the decree holder bank filed the certified copy of the decree and also the vakalatnama of the respondent bank and hence the execution case having been filed long after two and half years is hopelessly barred by limitation and as such are liable to be rejected as per provisions of Section 28 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. .....Nasir Hossain Chaklader vs Joint District Judge & Artha Rin Adalat No. 2, Dhaka. 6 ADC 302. |
Nasir Hossain Chaklader vs Joint District Judge & Artha Rin Adalat No. 2, Dhaka | 6 ADC 302 |
Section 28 |
It has already been settled by the Appellate Division in the case reported in Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation (BADC) Vs Artha Rin Adalat and ors 59 DLR (AD) 6, Gazi M Towfic Vs Agrani Bank and others 54 DLR (AD) 6, that the Judgment and decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat Cannot be interfered with by the High Court Division in writ jurisdiction. But the High Court Division interfere with judgment and decree passed by the Adalat that too violating the provision section 50 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, and as such the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Division is liable to be set aside. .....CEO Agrani Bank Limited vs. Shushanto Kumar Das (Zinat Ara J) (Civil) 16 ADC 513 |
CEO Agrani Bank Limited vs. Shushanto Kumar Das (Zinat Ara J) | 16 ADC 513 |
Sections 30 and 50 |
The notice was published in the newspaper for appearance of the judgment-debtors following the provision of section 30 of the Ain in a newspaper. The notice was for information to the judgment-debtors that a execution case has been filed for non-payment of decree dues. The notice was published about filing of the execution case legally. The High Court Division had no jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat in writ-petition by directing the writ-petitioner only to pay the principal amount of loan without paying the interest. This is in clear violation of section 50 of the Ain. .....Managing Director and CEO Agrani Bank Limited vs Shu-shanto Kumar Das (Civil), 73 DLR (AD) 116 |
Managing Director and CEO Agrani Bank Limited vs Shu-shanto Kumar Das | 73 DLR (AD) 116 |
Sections 30, 49(3) and 50 |
The parties are at liberty to resolve the dispute out of the court in
accordance with law– Appellate Division finds that the petitioner has
challenged the advertisement, the impugned notice published in the Daily
Shokaler Khobar on 25-5-2013 with regard to Execution Case No. 2 of 2013
which the respondent No. 3 bank in its affidavit-in-opposition has clearly
stated that the impugned advertisement was merely a show cause notice which
is innocent and it is also very pertinent to note that the petitioners has
come against the Artha Rin Execution Case No.2 of 2013 and now it is well
settled that writ-petition is not maintainable against any order of the
Artha Rin Execution Court however since the respondent No.3 has admitted
that the advertisement has mere show cause notice and the petitioner has
already paid Taka 2(two)- crore as per direction of this Court by 28
November, 2013 and he is supposed to pay rest of the principal amount in
another 8(eight) months and by this time he has already paid Taka
4,64,70,000 so this Division is of the view that let the petitioner be
directed to pay the rest of principal amount in 12 months time in 12 equal
months installment and the respondent No.3, Bank be directed to disposed
the claim against the petitioner and back all the original document to the
petitioner through Court can compliance of the payment to the satisfaction
of the concerned Court. With the above observations, the Rule is disposed
of”
|
Agrani Bank Limited =VS= Shushanto Kumar Das | 12 LM (AD) 267 |
Section 31 |
In the instant case, only an appeal under section 7(2) could be preferred challenging the decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and in the absence of any such appeal, we do not find that the petitioner's application for stay of the Artha Rin Execution Case No. 2 of 2001 is maintainable. .....Shahajan Traders vs Sub-ordinate Judge and Artha Rin Adalat, 15 BLT (AD) 370. |
Shahajan Traders vs Sub-ordinate Judge and Artha Rin Adalat | 15 BLT (AD) 370 |
Section 31 |
In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner's allegation of non service of summons of the suit is correct, his remedy of a separate suit is not barred, provided his remedies under the Artha Rin Adalat Act stood barred at the time of the filing of the suit for no fault of his own. But, these are matters of evidence and until the plaintiff petitioner proves these allegations in the suit the decree-holder respondent-Bank cannot be denied the fruit of its decree for indefinite period. .....Md Mozammel Hoque vs Sonali Bank, 15 BLD (AD) 35. |
Md Mozammel Hoque vs Sonali Bank | 15 BLD (AD) 35 |
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) 31 |
Section 31 |
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
|
Farid Uddin Mahmud: -Vs.- Md. Saidur Rahman and others | 5 ALR (AD)2015(1) 31 |
Sections 32 and 60(2) & (3) |
The suit filed by the respondents against the judgment and decree delivered
by the Artha Rin Adalat was not barred in view of the provision of
sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 and that the
respondents may still have recourse to section 32 of the Artha Rin Adalat
Ain, 2003 to seek redress of their grievances by filing an application
according to the provisions of section 32 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain,
2003.
|
International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd. -Vs.- Md. Alauddin and others | 15 ALR (AD)73-76 |
Section 32 |
It is the settled principle that if any party adduce evidence beyond the
pleadings is liable to be ignored. Parties cannot be permitted to lead
evidence beyond their pleadings and leading of the evidence beyond the
pleadings is unwarranted and conclusion based on such evidence cannot be
approved. Normally, evidence beyond pleadings cannot be considered by the
Court. The said principle is still being followed, but there are exception
to this general Rule. Exception is that when in the absence of the
pleading.
|
Agrani Bank Ltd -Vs.- Md. Abdus Sobhan and others | 22 ALR (AD) 122 |
Sections 32 and 60(2) & (3) |
The suit filed by the respondents against the judgment and decree delivered
by the Artha Rin Adalat was not barred in view of the provision of
sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 and that the
respondents may still have recourse to section 32 of the Artha Rin Adalat
Ain, 2003 to seek redress of their grievances by filing an application
according to the provisions of section 32 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain,
2003.
|
International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd. -Vs.- Md. Alauddin and others | 15 ALR (AD)73-76 |
Section 32 |
The appellants initially filed application under section 32 of the Ain but the same was converted to an application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code which provides the provision of setting aside auction on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in holding auction. Within four corners of their application, the appellants did not state anything about the material irregularity and fraud in holding auction. The Appellate Division is of the view that the instant application under order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not at all entertainable since the appellants in their application have failed to make out a case of material irregularity and fraud in holding auction. .....Hazi Md. Abul Kashem and others. -Vs.- Janata Bank Ltd. and others. (Civil) 30 ALR (AD) 29 |
Hazi Md. Abul Kashem and others. -Vs.- Janata Bank Ltd. and others | 30 ALR (AD) 29 |
Section 32(1)(2) |
In view of section 32(1)(2) Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, the petitioners were required to deposit 25% of the decretal amount while making an application for restoration of possession and in that view of the matter, the learned Judges of the High Court Division had committed no error in law in interfering with the judgment of the learned District Judge. Since the petitioners are not claiming title through the Judgment-debtors, this judgment will not stand on the way if they file a fresh suit, for recovery of the suit property. .....Jalaluddin Ahmed vs. Md. Selim Hossain, 7 ADC 291. |
Jalaluddin Ahmed vs. Md. Selim Hossain | 7 ADC 291 |
Section 32(2) |
Section 32(2)—The language of sub-section (2) is absolutely mandatory in
nature as consequence of non-deposit of such security has been provided
therein and since the petitioners did not deposit security equivalent to
25% of the decretal amount, their application was incompetent. .....Gias
Uddin Chowdhury vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of
Law, 66 DLR (AD) 213.
|
Gias Uddin Chowdhury (Md) vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law | 66 DLR (AD) 213 |
Section 32(2) |
The respondent No. 1 Sonali Bank Limited instituted Artha Rin Suit No. 623 of 2004 in Artha Rin Adalat No.1, Dhaka against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for realization of outstanding loan. The said suit was decreed ex-parte by the judgment and decree dated 8-9-2004. The decree-holder bank thereafter filed Artha Execution Case No. 189 of 2005 on the basis of the said decree. While the said Artha Execution Case was pending this present petitioner, as a third party claimant, filed an application under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil procedure claiming some of the mortgaged properties to be his own. The said application was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 25 of 2009. The learned Judge of the executing court ultimately rejected the said application by the judgment and order dated 15-6-2009 on the ground that the security as per section 32(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 was not deposited. Admittedly this petitioner did not deposit the security as per section 32(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 for consideration of his application under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The executing Artha Rin Adalat, therefore, by the impugned order rightly rejected the said application on the ground that no security as per section 32(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 was deposited. This order of the Artha Rin Adalat rejecting this petitioner's application under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure was passed in accordance with section 32(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. The contention of this petitioner's learned Counsel that the Artha Rin Adalat passed the said order under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not correct at all. The application under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed as per provision of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and the rejection of the same also was ordered in accordance with the provision of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. .....Md Humayun Kabir vs Sonali Hank Limited, IX ADC 335. |
Md Humayun Kabir vs Sonali Hank Limited | 9 ADC 335 |
Section 32 |
If a third party raises any objection against the execution proceeding by submitting any claim ('vex), then he has to comply with the provision of sub-section (2) of section 32 of the Ain. What is important to note here is that the objection must be against the execution of a decree and that the claim must be on the subject matter of the suit/execution proceeding. .....Md. Salim Hossain vs. Artha Rin Adalat (Syed Mahmud Hossain J) (Civil) 10 ADC 420 |
Md. Salim Hossain vs. Artha Rin Adalat (Syed Mahmud Hossain J) | 10 ADC 420 |
Section 32 |
Normally all disputes between the parties of a civil nature would be adjudicated upon by a civil court. There is no absolute right in any one to demand that his dispute is to be adjudicated upon only by a civil court. Access to civil court which is an important vested right in every citizen of the country implies the existence of the power of the court to render justice according to law. Where statute is silent and judicial intervention is required, courts strive to redress grievances according to what is perceived to be principles of justice, equity and good conscience. (M.V. Elisabeth V. Harwan Investment, AIR 1993 SC 1014). .....Md. Sekandar vs. Janata Bank Ltd. (Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ) (Civil) 14 ADC 51 |
Md. Sekandar vs. Janata Bank Ltd. | 14 ADC 51 |
Section 32(1) |
The Rupali bank Limited instituted Artha Rin Mortgage Suit No.69 of 2003 in the Court of the Artha Rin Adalat, Narayangonj, for realization of a sum of Taka 18,37,494/- with interest against the respondent Nos.3-6 stating that on the basis of the application of the judgment debtors, the plaintiff bank initially sanctioned a sum of Taka 1,50,000/- as cash credit hypo loan on 12th August, 1991. .....Jalaluddin Ahmed vs. Md. Selim Hossain (S.K. Sinha J)(Civil) 7 ADC 291 |
Jalaluddin Ahmed vs. Md. Selim Hossain | 7 ADC 291 |
Section 32 (2) |
The respondent No. 1 Sonali Bank Limited instituted Artha Rin Suit No.623 of 2004 in Artha Rin Adalat No.l, Dhaka against the respondent Nos.2 to 5 for realization of outstanding loan. The said suit was decreed ex-parte by the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2004. .....Md. Humayun Kabir vs. Sonali Bank (Nazmun Ara Sultana J) (Civil) 9 ADC 335 |
Humayun Kabir vs. Sonali Bank | 9 ADC 335 |
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]
|
Sekandar (Md.) =VS= Janata Bank Ltd. | 3 LM (AD) 448 |
Section 32(1) |
Section 32(1)— Third party to file a suit to establish his right– The
High Court Division has totally overlooked the applicability of Order 21
rule 103 of Code of Civil Procedure so far as it relates to the right of a
third party in the property sold. Sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Ain
does not debar the applicability of the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure, if a third party makes an application for setting aside the
sale. He can file objection against the sale in accordance with the
provisions of the Code, but the scope of investigation being limited, we
find no cogent ground to debar a third party to file a suit to establish
his right or title if his right is fringed by reason of sale in view of
order 21 rule 103. We hold the view that a suit for establishment of right,
title and interest in respect of the mortgaged property by a third party is
maintainable because there is no specific bar either expressly or impliedly
in the Ain to file such suit. .....Sekandar (Md.) =VS= Janata Bank Ltd.,
(Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 448]
|
Sekandar (Md.) =VS= Janata Bank Ltd. | 3 LM (AD) 448 |
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. |
Mohiuddin (Sk.) Vs. Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka and others | 13 MLR (AD) 356 |
Section 33 |
The Appellate Division found that there is no doubt that the executing Court without following the procedures for sale of the mortgaged property accepted the offer of Kutub Uddin and a sale deed was also executed and registered in his favour. Learned counsel failed to satisfy Appellate Division the modus operandi of the order of the Court in accepting his offer. Though the Appellate Division agree with the High Court Division that the acceptance of Kutub Uddin's offer was without any sanction of law, the Appellate Division is unable to accept the other observation that the executing Court should have proceeded in compliance the parameters set by it. There is no doubt that the appellant Kutub Uddin Ahmed is a stranger purchaser of the mortgaged property. The executing court accepted his offer ignoring the statutory provision of law for selling mortgaged property in auction. The sales in favour of both Ragib Ali and Kutub Uddin were made violating the law. …..Agrani Bank -Vs.- Anwarul Bashir Khan 5 ALR (AD)2015(1) 99 |
Agrani Bank -Vs.- Anwarul Bashir Khan | 5 ALR (AD)2015(1) 99 |
Section 33 |
Procedure for auction sale of a mortgaged property— In view of the fact that the Executing Court without following procedure of section 33 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 sold the suit property to respondent Kutub Uddin Ahmed, the High Court Division erred in law in accepting the impugned auction sale and registration of a sale deed in favor of Kutub Uddin Ahmed. The Appellate Division cancelled the auction sale and the corresponding sale deed in favor of respondent Kutub Uddin Ahmed and remanded the case back to the High Court Division with observations. …..Agrani Bank -Vs.- Anwarul Bashir Khan 2 ALR (2013)(AD) 74 |
Agrani Bank -Vs.- Anwarul Bashir Khan | 2 ALR (2013)(AD) 74 |
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. |
Provat Kumar Das vs Agrani Bank | 15 BLC (AD) 113 |
Section 33(1) |
The owner of the mortgaged property being a third party mortgagor, notice under section 33(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 was required to be issued upon him, which was not done in the instant case and thereby, the whole process of auction sale was illegal and without jurisdiction. …..Sheikh Jarjis Hossain and others -Vs.- Agrani Bank Limited and others 5 ALR (AD)2015(1) 10 |
Sheikh Jarjis Hossain and others -Vs.- Agrani Bank Limited and others | 5 ALR (AD)2015(1) 10 |
Sections 33(2) and 49(3) |
The High Court Division fell an error in allowing the judgment-debtor to pay the decreetal amount by installments in failing to consider that the property had already been sold in auction to the appellant and thereby he had acquired a valuable right in the said property, which right could not be taken away without affording him an opportunity of being heard. …..Farid Uddin Mahmud: -Vs.- Md. Saidur Rahman and others 5 ALR (AD)2015(1) 31 |
Farid Uddin Mahmud: -Vs.- Md. Saidur Rahman and others | 5 ALR (AD)2015(1) 31 |
Section 33(5) and 60 |
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 & others -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and others | 20 ALR (AD) 70-71 |
Section 33 (6 Kha) |
Whether section 33(6 Kha) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 (Act No. 8 of
2003) Amendment Act, 2010 as Amendment on 31.03.2010 should be given
retrospective effect and why section 33 (6 Kha) of the Artha Rin Adalat
Ain, 2003 (Act No. 8 of 2003) Amendment Act, 2010 as Amendment on
31.03.2010 should not be declared to have been made ultra vires the
Constitution, being contrary to section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 and in violation of Article 42 of the Constitution if the same has
been given retrospective effect.
|
K. Ashfaq Ahmed and others -Vs.- Bangladesh Krishi Bank and others | 23 ALR (AD) 01 |
Section 33(5) |
Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
|
Sonali Bank Limited =VS= Mosammat Salma Begum | 13 LM (AD) 26 |
Section 33 (7) |
Fraud is a ground for nullifying a judgment and it can be raised or set up
in a collateral proceeding to show that a decree or order obtained by the
decree holder against the judgment debtor was by practicing fraud or
collusion.
|
Jahangir Kabir Chowdhury -Vs.- Bangladesh Government, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others | 8 ALR (AD) 283-289 |
Section 33 (7) |
If the decree-holder is willing to acquire title to the mortgaged property,
it has to file an application before the Artha Rin Adalat, in short, the
Adalat and upon receipt of such application the Adalat will take step under
sub-sections (1), (2) (2ka), (2kha), (2ga) and (3) thereof and will not
take any step under sub-sections (4) and (5) i.e one open auction must be
held before issuing a certificate under sub-section (7) of section 33 of
the Ain.
|
Ellal Textile Mills Limited -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 3rd Court, Dhaka and others | 15 ALR (AD)30-33 |
Section 33 |
Under the Ain, the Artha Rin Adalat was empowered to raise money for payment of the total amount by way of mortgage or lease or private sale of the property with the permission of the Court. The expression, 'the amount of the decree may be raised' used in sub-rule (1) means the total decretal amount and not an amount which could not satisfy the decree, and no Court can grant such permission unless the entire debt can be realized by private alienation. This provision should be read subject to the provision of sub-rule (3). .....Agrani Bank vs Anwarul Bashir Khan, 19 BLC (AD) 120. |
Agrani Bank vs Anwarul Bashir Khan | 19 BLC (AD) 120 |
Sections 33 and 34 |
Civil imprisonment will not exempt decretal amount. Held: Section 34 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 is clear and provides for ordering civil imprisonment up to 6 months against a Judgment-debtor for compelling to satisfy the decree. Section 34 is not dependent upon section 33. In the instant case, the decree holder has taken step for auction sale of the property but there being no response, auction sale could not be held. Further, it appears from the 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. |
Provat Kumar Das. vs Agrani Bank | 15 BLC (AD) 113 |
Section 33 |
Procedure for selling any property by the Artha Rin Adalat for realization
of the decreetal amount:
|
MA Mannan (Retd.) vs Social Investment Bank Ltd | 31 BLD (AD) 124 |
Section 33 |
In the premises, the Artha Rin Adalat has exceeded its jurisdiction in selling the mortgaged property in auction without following the provisions law and that's too when the decree holder itself prayed in Court that it had already compromised the matter with the Judgment-debtor subject to the approval of the Bangladesh Bank. Lt. Col. .....MA Mannan (Retd.) vs Social Investment Bank Ltd, 31 BLD (AD) 124. |
MA Mannan (Retd.) vs Social Investment Bank Ltd | 31 BLD (AD) 124 |
Section 33 |
Against the order of discharge for default–
|
Md. Nuruzzaman =VS= Artha Rin Adalat & others | 1 LM (AD) 416 |
Sections 33 and 34 |
Section 34 of the Ain, 2003 provides for ordering civil imprisonment upto 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. |
Provat Kumar Das vs Agrani Bank | 15 BLC (AD) 113 |
Section 33(7) |
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 | 4 LM (AD) 110 |
Sections 33 and 34 |
Civil imprisonment will not exempt payment of the decretal amount––
Appellate Division have perused the leave petition and considered the
submissions of the learned Advocate. This Division has also perused the
provisions of Sections 33 and 34 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. It
appears that the Section 34 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 is clear and
provides for ordering civil imprisonment up to 6 months against a
judgment-debtor for compelling to satisfy the decree. Section 34 is not
dependant upon Section-33. In the instant case, the decree holder has taken
step for auction sale of the property but there being no response, auction
sale could not be held. Further it appears from the 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, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 491]
|
Provat Kumar Das =VS= Agrani Bank | 14 LM (AD) 491 |
Section 33(1) |
Challenging the legality of the auction notice published under section 12(3) read with Section 33(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, on the ground that the time frame of 15(fifteen) days as stipulated in section 33(1) and not been complied with. The High Court Division on consideration of the provision of the time frame of 15(fifteen) days contained in section 33(1), held that the date of publication of the notice on 11-9-2008 is to be included within the said 15(fifteen) days which ended on 25-9-2008. .....Md Rafiqul Islam Faruque vs Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministary of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, VIII ADC 439. |
Md Rafiqul Islam Faruque vs Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministary of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs | 8 ADC 439 |
Section 33(1)(4) |
The above law has given a protection to a purchaser in a execution process. Right, title and interest conferred upon the purchaser for value cannot be called in question. If any illegality or irregularity is found in process of sell, the judgment debtor may claim compensation from the decree holder-Bank. .....Md. Hamiduzzaman vs. Joint District Judge, Faridpur (M. Enayetur Rahim J) (Civil) 19 ADC 666. |
Md. Hamiduzzaman vs. Joint District Judge, Faridpur | 19 ADC 666 |
Section 33(5) |
The stage at which a claim is to be preferred under Order XXI Rule 58 is intended to be a stage before the sale has actually been held and the attachment is pending. In the instant case auction has already been held at the instance of the bank itself after getting certificate under section 33(5) of the Ain. The High Court Division acted in excess of its authority in allowing claim petition preferred under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure after the property attached was sold. .....Sonali Bank Limited vs. Mosammat Salma Begum (Hasan Foez Siddique CJ) (Civil) 19 ADC 239 |
Sonali Bank Limited vs. Mosammat Salma Begum | 19 ADC 239 |
Section 33(5) |
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
|
Syed Jobayer Hossain =VS= Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka | 13 LM (AD) 470 |
Section 33(5) |
At the instance of the decree holder-bank auction was held and ultimately the decree-holder-bank has withdrawn the money deposited by the auction purchasers. After the auction process is completed, proceeding with the execution case is redundant. .....Sonali Bank vs Artha Rin Adalat, 62 DLR (AD) 231. |
Sonali Bank vs Artha Rin Adalat | 62 DLR (AD) 231 |
Section 33(5) |
Certificate of Sale—Grant Instalment—Held: 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, 13 MLR (AD) 356. |
Mohiuddin (SK.) vs Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka | 13 MLR (AD) 356 |
Section 33(5) |
Auction completed—Execution case redundant. —Held: Bank has already encashed the pay order and thereby accepted the auction sale. In view of the provision of law to the effect that once an auction sale is completed no relief is available against such auction sale but the mortgagee may proceed against the mortgagor bank for any compensation, it is proved that there was illegality in the auction sale. In the instant case, it is not such case rather it appears that at the instance of the decree-holder bank auction was held and ultimately the decree holder bank has withdrawn the money deposited by the auction purchasers. After the auction is completed, proceeding with the execution case is redundant. .....Sonali Bank vs Artha Rin Adalat, 62 DLR (AD) 231. |
Sonali Bank vs Artha Rin Adalat | 62 DLR (AD) 231 |
Section 33(5) |
Auction completed—Execution case redundant— Bank has already encased the pay order and thereby accepted the auction sale. In view of the provision of law to the effect that once an auction sale is completed no relief is available against such auction sale but the mortgagee may proceed against the mortgagor bank for any compensation, it is proved that there was illegality in the auction sale. In the instant case, it is not such case rather it appears that at the instance of the decree-holder bank auction was held and ultimately the decree holder bank has withdrawn the money deposited by the auction purchasers. After the auction process is completed, proceeding with the execution case is redundant. .....Sonali Bank vs. Artha Rin Adalat, 62 DLR (AD) 231. |
Sonali Bank vs. Artha Rin Adalat | 62 DLR (AD) 231 |
Section 33(5) |
Certificate under section 33(5) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 due to non availability of bidder in the auction sale held on 4.4.2005 for sale of the properties mortgaged by the judgment debtor petitioners as security for the loan. .....Crownage Tannaries Ltd vs Joint District Judge, 6 ADC 594. |
Crownage Tannaries Ltd vs Joint District Judge | 6 ADC 594 |
Section 33(5) |
It appears that 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 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 purchaser for value. .....Sonali Bank vs Hazera Islam, 6 ADC 975. |
Sonali Bank vs Hazera Islam | 6 ADC 975 |
Section 33(5), 33, 33(1) to 4 |
Sale having been not taken place there were attempts for putting the property to sale on repeated dates and the date of sale was lastly shifted to 1-12-2003 when the respondent No. 3 offered Tk. 6,07,00,00 which was accepted by the court and the said respondent deposited 25% of the bid money and at that stage the petitioner challenged the impugned order and so the sale could not be finalized. There is according to him no illegality in the sale. .....Junayed Quader vs Artha Rin Adalat No 4, Dhaka, 3 ADC 825. |
Junayed Quader vs Artha Rin Adalat No 4, Dhaka | 3 ADC 825 |
Section 33(5) |
The property in question which was duly mortgaged and attached by the Adalat concerned. In the execution process the property was transferred to the decree holder bank as per provision of section 33(5) of the Ain. The schedule of the plaint in respect of the land was amended without any objection of the defendants and eventually in the execution case the correction was made to that effect. The bank filed an application for attachment of the property in question and the defendants contested the application by filing written objection and the Subordinate judge by its order passed an ad-interim order of attachment and thereafter, hearing the parties by an order attached the property in question till disposal of the suit. None of the defendants did take any step before the higher forum against such attachment of the property in question. .....Syed Jobayer Hossain vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No.1 (Civil) 28 BLC (AD) 50 |
Syed Jobayer Hossain vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No.1 | 28 BLC (AD) 50 |
Section 33(7) |
It appears that the respondent bank already became the owner of all the mortgaged property mentioned in the Writ petition after getting a certificate from the Court under section 33(7) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and the price assessed was taka 8 lacs which was deducted from the claim of the plaintiff bank and therefore the High Court Division committed no illegality in discharging the Rule. .....Dr SM Eunus Ali vs Joint District Judge, 7 ADC 194. |
Dr SM Eunus Ali vs Joint District Judge | 7 ADC 194 |
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]
|
Sonali Bank, Dhaka =VS= Hazera Islam(Mrs.) | 8 LM (AD) 140 |
Section 33(7) |
A reading of sub- section (7) of section 33 of the Ain, 2003 clearly shows that if the decree-holder is willing to acquire title to the mortgaged property, it has to file an application before the Adalat, the Adalat and upon receipt of such application the Adalat will take step under sub-sections (1), (2) (2ka), (2kha), (2ga) and (3) thereof and will not take any step under sub-sections (4) and (5) i.e one open auction must be held before issuing a certificate under sub-section (7) of section 33 of the Ain. But from order Nos. 4, 5 and 8 it is prima facie clear that no auction as contemplated in sub-section (7) was ever held including the one in question. .....Ellal Textile Mills Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat, 3rd Court, Dhaka, 70 DLR (AD) 63. |
Ellal Textile Mills Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat, 3rd Court, Dhaka | 70 DLR (AD) 63 |
Section 33 |
The judgment debtors for recovery of a sum of Tk.2,09,59,112/-. There was publication notice for selling of the mortgaged property on auction on 18th February, 2003 and ultimately 12th March, 2003 was fixed for sale of the mortgaged property. As no bidder attended in the auction sale on successive three dates on 12th March, 30th March and 14th June, 2003, the decree holder came up with a application that it had amicably settled the dispute regarding payment of the decreetal amount with the judgment debtor and prayed for staying further proceedings of the executing case. Lt. Col. .....M. A. Mannan (Retd.) vs. Social Investment Bank Ltd (S.K. Sinha J)(Civil) 8 ADC 518 |
M. A. Mannan (Retd.) vs. Social Investment Bank Ltd | 8 ADC 518 |
Section 33(1) |
Challenging the legality of the auction notice published under Section 12(3) lead with Section 33( 1) of the Artho Rin Adalat Ain,2003, on the ground that the me frame of 15 (fifteen) days as stipu-etcd in Section 33(1) had not been omplied with. .....Md. Rafiqul Islam fanique vs. Government of Bangladesh (A.B.M. Khairul Haque J) (Civil) 8 ADC 439 |
Md. Rafiqul Islam fanique vs. Government of Bangladesh | 8 ADC 439 |
Section 33(5)and 57 |
Mr. Abdul Quiyum, learned counsel for the petitioners has taken us all the documents and judgments including the impugned judgment and submits that the High Court Division erred in law in failing to consider that the mortgaged property was collusively transferred by suppression of material facts by evicting the petitioners from their dwelling houses which property is quite distinct from the property mortgaged with the Rupali Bank. .....Md. Rafiqul Islam vs. Md. Azmal Hossain (S.K. Sinha J)(Civil) 9 ADC 842 |
Md. Rafiqul Islam vs. Md. Azmal Hossain | 9 ADC 842 |
Section 33(5) |
Certificate under section 33(5) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 due to non availability of bidder in the auction sale held on 4.4.2005 for sale of the properties mortgaged by the judgment debtor petitioners as security for the loan. .....M/s. Cromvege Tannaries Ltd vs. Joint District Judge (Md. Tafazzid Islam J) (Civil) 6 ADC 594 |
M/s. Cromvege Tannaries Ltd vs. Joint District Judge | 6 ADC 594 |
Section 33 (6 Kha) |
Section 33(6 Kha) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 (Act No.8 of 2003) Amendment Act, 2010 as Amendment on 31.03.2010 (Annexure-I) should be given retrospective effect only; and (ii) alternatively, why section 33 (6 Kha) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain,2003 (Act No.8 of 2003) Amendment Act, 2010 as Amendment on 31.03.2010 (Annexure-I) should not be declared to have been made ultra vires the Constitution. .....K. Ashfaq Ahmed vs. Bangladesh Krishi Bank (Syed Mahmud Hossain J) (Civil) 12 ADC 299 |
K. Ashfaq Ahmed vs. Bangladesh Krishi Bank | 12 ADC 299 |
Section 33(7) |
A reading of sub-section (7) of section 33 of the Ain, 2003 clearly shows that if the decree-holder is willing to acquire title to the mortgaged property, it has to file an application before the Artha Rin Adalat, in short, the Adalat and upon receipt of such application the Adalat will take step under sub sections (1), (2) (2ka), (2kha), (2ga) and (3) thereof and will not take any step under sub sections (4) and (5) i.e one open auction must be held before issuing a certificate under Sub-section (7) of section 33 of the Ain. But from order Nos. 4, 5 and 8 it is prima facie clear that no auction as contemplated in sub-section (7) was ever held including the one in question. .....M/S Ellal Textile Mills vs. Artha Rin Adalat (Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah J) (Civil) 14 ADC 472 |
M/S Ellal Textile Mills vs. Artha Rin Adalat | 14 ADC 472 |
Section 33(7) |
The defence case is that under small industrial loan BISIC on 18.05.1994 by sanction letter No.94/04 the defendant received Tk.3,92,500/- and the defendant petitioner adjusted the loan of Tk.72,303/- but the plaintiff bank fraudulently created over draft loan (OD) of Tk. 1,65,546/- and when it was detected the plaintiffs authority was offered as loan of Tk.30,00,000/- (thirty lacs) on condition that the loan of Tk. 16,55,546/- will be adjusted and to I return rest amount to the petitioner and I sanction the same in favour of the defendant petitioner for which the petitioner executed collateral security of Tk.33,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff bank. But the plaintiff did not ultimately materialize the plaintiff bank with ill motive kept petitioner's document in his Custody and suppressed the facts and filed the instant suit. .....Dr. S. M. Eunus Ali vs. Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Malat (Md. Abdul Matin J)(Civil) 7 ADC 194 |
Dr. S. M. Eunus Ali vs. Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Malat | 7 ADC 194 |
Section 33 |
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, Naogaon and others
(Civil) 7 ALR (AD) 42
|
Md. Nuruzzaman -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, Naogaon and others | 7 ALR (AD) 42 |
Section 33(5) |
Conflicting claims and counter claims–– The Executing Court, 1st
Additional District Judge, Dhaka is hereby directed to put the said
property in auction with full compliance of the legal formalities and the
sale proceeds received out of such sale should be distributed to Al-Baraka
Bank at the 1st point of time with 10% interest starting from the date of
its Mortgage decree in respect of the loan since it is found to be the only
secured creditor.
|
Sonali Bank Limited =VS= Agrani Bank Limited | 11 LM (AD) 569 |
Section 34 |
Empowers the Artha Rin Adalat to pass order for civil imprisonment against
the judgment-debtor—
|
Proval Kumar Das Vs. Manager Agrani Bank, Main Branch Shahcb Bazar, Rajshahi and another | 15 MLR (AD) 96 |
Section 34 (2) & (11) |
The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
|
Mst. Sufia Khatun =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, Khulna & others | 1 LM (AD) 226 |
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]
|
Mst. Sufia Khatun =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, Khulna & others | 1 LM (AD) 226 |
Section 34 |
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, and no provision has been made in Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
for exempting a woman judgement-debtor from being arrested for the purpose
of realisation of the decretal amount as per section 34 of the special law.
|
Mst. Sufia Khatun -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, Khulna and others | 19 ALR (AD) 96-97 |
Section 34 |
Whether an application by the decree-holder bank or financial institution for issuance of warrant of arrest against the judgment debtor under Section 34(1) of the said Ain has to be filed along with affidavit. The High Court Division held that it appears from the provisions under Section 34 of the said Ain that, according to sub-section (1) of the said provision, on an application of decree-holder bank or financial institution, the Adalat is empowered to commit the judgment debtor to 06 (six) months civil imprisonment in an effort to realize the decreetal amount. This sub-section (1) of Section 34 does not provide for anything like affidavit or verification. However, since it provides that such committal order has to be passed on the basis of an application filed by the decree-holder, the High Court Division is of the view that, mere application with verification is the basic requirement of this provision. Therefore, when an application is filed even without verification by the concerned officer of the bank or financial institution, such application cannot be regarded as an application filed by the decree-holder. By expressing this view, the High Court Division has already set aside the order of the executing Adalat issuing warrant of arrest in some cases, namely Golam Kabir vs. Bangladesh, 15 BLC-831, Sheikh Nazmul Haque vs Bangladesh, 14 BLC-107 and Marzan Abedin vs. Artha Rin Adalat, 65 DLR-79. .....A.R. Jafar Sadek -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and others. (Spl.Original) 16 ALR (AD) 265-272 |
A.R. Jafar Sadek -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and others | 16 ALR (AD) 265-272 |
Section 34 |
Section 34 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 is clear and provides for ordering civil imprisonment up to 6 months against a Judgment-debtor for compelling to satisfy the decree. Section 34 is not dependent upon section 33. In the instant case, the decree holder has taken step for auction sale of the property but there being no response, auction sale could not be held. Further, it appears from the 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 MLR (AD) 96 = 15 BLC (AD) 96. |
Provat Kumar Das. vs Agrani Bank | 15 MLR (AD) 96 = 15 BLC (AD) 96 |
Section 34(1)(9)(12) |
The Adalat shall not pass any order of civil detention until process of holding of auction sale of the property of the Judgment-debtor(s) has been resorted to at least once. That power under sub-section (1) thereof cannot be exercised unless the conditions as stipulated therein are fulfilled. .....Abdur Razzaque Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat, 65 DLR (AD) 111. |
Abdur Razzaque Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat | 65 DLR (AD) 111 |
Section 34(3) |
Artha Rin Adalat is empowered to confine the judgment debtor/s in civil prison for a period of 6(six) months to compel them to pay the decreetal amount. According to section 34(3) of Ain, if the borrower is a company, the natural person consisting of whom the company is deemed to have been formed, shall, severally and jointly be liable to confinement in civil prison. .....Rupali Bank Limited vs Mahmuda Jaman (Civil) 75 DLR (AD) 225 |
Rupali Bank Limited vs Mahmuda Jaman | 75 DLR (AD) 225 |
Section 34(5) |
Under section 34(5) of Ain, the writ-petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail unless they deposit 25% of the total decretal amount and also execute a bond to the effect that they will pay the rest of the decreetal amount within next 90(ninety) days. The High Court Division without complying with provisions of law, most illegally released the writ- petitioners on bail. .....Rupali Bank Limited vs Mahmuda Jaman (Civil) 75 DLR (AD) 225 |
Rupali Bank Limited vs Mahmuda Jaman | 75 DLR (AD) 225 |
Section 34(9) |
At least a single auction of mortgaged property shall have to be attempted before issuing order of warrant of arrest. Order of warrant of arrest in question cannot be sustained since the same are not in keeping with section 34(9) of Ain. .....Abul Kalam (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat, Khulna, 65 DLR 431. |
Abul Kalam (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat, Khulna | 65 DLR 431 |
Section 34(9) |
No property at all—Question of realization— Held : Having considered the admission of the petitioner that he has no property at all rightly held that the question of realization of the decreetal amount as per sub section (9) of section 34 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 does not arise at all. .....Abdur Rashid vs Artha Rin Adalat, 7 ADC 611. |
Abdur Rashid vs Artha Rin Adalat | 7 ADC 611 |
Section 34 |
From the very impugned order in appears that on the prayer of this judgment-debtor-leave-petitioner the executing court earlier re-called the warrant of arrest more than once for enabling him to pay the decretal amount, but inspite of that the judgment-debtor-leave-petitioner did not pay the decretal amount. In the circumstances, on the prayer of the decree-holder bank, the executing court issued warrant of arrest against this judgment-debtor-leave-petitioner again by the impugned order. .....A.H.M Badiuzzaman vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Mymensingh (Nazmun Ara Sultana J) (Civil) 11 ADC 901 |
A.H.M Badiuzzaman vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat | 11 ADC 901 |
Section 34 |
The Adalat issued warrant of arrest against the judgement debtor-petitioners under section 34 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 for the purpose of compelling them to pay the decretal amount. .....Mst. Sufia Khatun vs. Artha Rin Adalat (Muhammad Imman Ali J) (Civil) 13 ADC164 |
Mst. Sufia Khatun vs. Artha Rin Adalat | 13 ADC164 |
Section 34(1) |
The writ petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition against order No.55 dated 09.04.2015 passed by the Artha Rin Adalat No.1, Dhaka in Artha Zari Case No.494 of 2004 issuing warrant of arrest against the writ petitioner under Section 34(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 (the Ain). The writ respondent No.2 Sonali Bank instituted Artha Rin Suit No.494 of 2014 for realization of defaulted loan of tk.6,57,22,147.50/- and got decree. The bank put the said decree in execution in the aforesaid Execution case. .....Shahnaz Chowdhury vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat (Hasan Foez Siddique J) (Civil) 18 ADC 727 |
Shahnaz Chowdhury vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat | 18 ADC 727 |
Section 34, (9) |
Under Section 34 of the Ain with a Bayer for warrant of arrest for civil jail igainst judgment debtor No.2 allegedly for not appearing in the court despite having notice of the execution case. .....Abdur Rashid vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalal No.l, Chittagong (Md. Abdul Matin J) (Civil) 7 ADC 611 |
Abdur Rashid vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalal No.l, Chittagong | 7 ADC 611 |
Sections 40 and 44Ka |
Sections 40 and 44Ka—In case of pledge loan, firstly, the borrower has to
furnish a certain amount as agreed between lender bank and the borrower as
margin, which in this case was 30% of the loan amount; secondly, in case of
pledge loan facility, pledge goods remain under the custody of lender bank.
The Adalat rightly found that it could not legally compel the defendants to
refund the pledge loan when pledged goods were misappropriated from the
bank's custody. .....Nimai Chandra Biswas vs Sonali Bank, 22 BLC (AD) 195
|
Nimai Chandra Biswas vs Sonali Bank | 22 BLC (AD) 195 |
Section 40 |
The provisions of appeal and revision of the Code such as sections 96, 104, Order XLI and section 115 respectively have been made applicable in respect of an appeal and a revision, if filed under the Ain, 2003 subject to the provisions of the Ain. .....Golzar Hossain (Md), Advocate vs Janata Bank 65 DLR (AD) 101. |
Golzar Hossain (Md), Advocate vs Janata Bank | 65 DLR (AD) 101 |
Section 40, 42 |
Since no limitation has been provided for in section 42 of the Ain or any other section thereof, the practice of filing a revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure within 90 days would be applicable in the present case and that the revisional application having been filed within 90 days, it could not be said that it was barred by limitation. .....IFIC Bank Ltd vs. Abdur Rahman (Syed Mahmud Hossain J) (Civil) 11 ADC 149 |
IFIC Bank Ltd vs. Abdur Rahman | 11 ADC 149 |
Sections 40 to 44ka |
Chapter 7 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 comprising sections 40 to 44ka deal with appeals and revisions, and section 40 provides that provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply in the proceedings of appeal and revision arising out of Artha Rin suits provided those are not inconsistent with any provisions of Artha Rin Adalat Ain. .....Nimai Chandra Biswas vs. Sonali Bank, Head Office (Syed Mahmud Hossain J) (Civil) 14 ADC 96 |
Nimai Chandra Biswas vs. Sonali Bank, Head Office | 14 ADC 96 |
Section 41 |
Appeal against order passed by Artha Rin Adalat in Execution case without
deposit of 50% decretal money is not maintainable —
|
Korea-Bangladesh Food Products Ltd. Vs. National Bank Limited and others | 13 MLR (AD) 253 |
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. |
Oriental Bank Ltd vs AB Siddiq (Ludu) | 13 BLC (AD) 144 |
Section 41 |
A third party cannot file any application for setting aside the decree or
order.
|
Md. Sekandar and another -Vs.- Janata Bank Ltd. and others | 9 ALR (AD) 81 |
Section 41 |
Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
|
Oriental Bank Ltd. former Al-Baraka Bank BD Ltd. =VS= A B Siddiq | 12 LM (AD) 614 |
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 time 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. |
Oriental Bank Ltd vs AB Siddiq (Ludu) | 13 BLC (AD) 144 |
Section 41 |
Appeal against the order in relation to decree for Tk.1,72,90,708 passed by the Artha Rin Adalat can only be submitted before the High Court Division—Held : Appeal was also not entertainable by the Court of District Judge or Additional District Judge as in the present case admittedly the decree was for Tk.1,72,90,708 and according to section 41 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, the appeal against the above order dated 8-2-2007 passed by the Artha Rin Adalat could be submitted only before the High Court Division. .....Sonali Bank Ltd. vs Md Nur Habib Bappi, 16 MLR (AD) 121. |
Sonali Bank Ltd. vs Md Nur Habib Bappi | 16 MLR (AD) 121 |
Section 41(1)(2) |
Filing of appeal under subsection (1) is subject to fulfilment of the requirement of subsection (2) of the Ain and both the provisions are conjunctive and not disjunctive and the law being a special law there is no way out to escape the limitation. .....Peninsular Shipping Service Ltd vs Faruque Paint and Varnish Manufacturing Co Ltd 59 DLR (AD) 26. |
Peninsular Shipping Service Ltd vs Faruque Paint and Varnish Manufacturing Co Ltd | 59 DLR (AD) 26 |
Section 41(1)(2) |
Filing of Appeal—Requirement—Held : Though we are of the view that the
memorandum of appeal being filed on 23-3-2005 was within 30 days from the
order complained of, but the memorandum of appeal being not enclosed with
proof of deposit of 50% of decretal amount and the filing of appeal being
subject to fulfilment of subsection (2) of section 41 (উপ-ধারা
(২)- এর বিধান সাপেক্ষে), the filing of the
memorandum of appeal simpliciter does not lead to hold that the appeal was
entertainable legaly.
|
Shipping Service Ltd vs Faruque Paint and Varnish Manufacturing Co. Ltd | 59 DLR (AD) 26=12 MLR (AD) 1 |
Section 41(1) & (2) |
Under section 41 any party in order to prefer an appeal against any order or decree of the Artha Rin Adalat is required to file the said appeal within 30 days and deposit 50% of the decretal amount and submit with the memorandum of appeal the proof of such deposit and in the absence of submitting such proof with memorandum of appeal no appeal filed under section 41(1) shall be accepted for any action. If the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41(1) and (2) of the said section are read meticulously it shall be crystal clear that filing of appeal under sub-section (1) is subject to fulfilment of the requirement of sub-section (2) of the Ain and both the provisions are therefore conjunctive and not disjunctive at all and the law being a special law there is no way out to escape the limitation. .....Peninsular Shipping Service Limited vs M/s. Faruque Paint and Varnish Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 26 BLD (AD) 172 = 59 DLR (AD) 26. |
Peninsular Shipping Service Limited vs M/s. Faruque Paint and Varnish Manufacturing Co. Ltd | 26 BLD (AD) 172 = 59 DLR (AD) 26 |
Section 41(1)(2) |
If the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41 and sub-section (2) of the said section are read meticulously it shall be crystal clear that filing of appeal under sub-section (1) is subject to fulfilment of the requirement of sub-section (2) of the Ain and both the provisions are therefore conjunctive and not disjunctive at all and the law being a special law there is no way out to escape the limitation. From the aforesaid discussion we find that the memorandum of appeal filed on 19-3-2005 being not accompanied with proof of deposit of 50% of decreetal amount, nor such deposit. being made within statutory period of 30 days, the High Court Division committed error in passing the impugned order (admitting the appeal for hearing) on 29-3-2005 and as such the order is not sustainable in law. .....Peninsular Shipping Service Ltd vs M/S Faruque Paint and Varnish Manufacturing Company Lid. 12 MLR (AD) 1=59 DLR (AD) 26 |
Peninsular Shipping Service Ltd vs M/S Faruque Paint and Varnish Manufacturing Company Lid | 12 MLR (AD) 1=59 DLR (AD) 26 |
Section 41(2) |
In an execution proceedings in respect of decree of Artha Rin Adalat an application for setting aside the auction sale on the ground of low valuation was rejected by Artha Rin Adalat. Since the Artha Rin Adalat Ain is a special statute, it shall prevail over all other laws including the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal against the order of rejection of the application was filed without deposit of 50% of the decretal amount. The Appellate Division held the appeal without such deposit is no appeal in the eye of law. .....Korea-Bangladesh Food Products Ltd vs National Bank Ltd. 13 MLR (AD) 253. |
Korea-Bangladesh Food Products Ltd vs National Bank Ltd | 13 MLR (AD) 253 |
Section 41(1) and 42(2) |
That the Artha Rin Adalat Ain being a special law prescribing the period of 30 days for filing appeal with 50% deposit of the decretal amount, the failure of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to deposit the said statutory amount within the time stipulated, renders the appeal as no appeal in the eye of law and as such the impugned order of the High Court Division admitting the appeal beyond 30 days and passing the ad-interim order is liable to be set aside being violative of Section 41 of the Ain. .....Peninsular Shipping Service Limited vs. M/S. Faruque Paint and Varnish Manufacturing Co. Ltd (Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J) (Civil) 4 ADC 372 |
Peninsular Shipping Service Limited vs. M/S. Faruque Paint and Varnish Manufacturing Co. Ltd | 4 ADC 372 |
Section 41(1) read with Section 44 |
Whether on an application under Order 26 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the order passed by the Artha Rin Adalat in exercise of power
under the Code of Civil Procedure is amenable to writ jurisdiction
|
M/S. Orient Trading Corp. & Ors Vs. Janata Bank & Ors | 25BLT (AD)118 |
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.
|
Md. Golzar Hossain Advocate -Vs.- Janata Bank | 3 ALR (AD) 130 |
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 | 1 ALR (AD) 65 |
Section 42 |
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
|
Md. Golzar Hossain Advocate -Vs.- Janata Bank | 3 ALR(2014)(1)(AD) 130 |
Sections 42 and 43 |
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.
|
Investment and Commerce BankLtd. (IFIC Bank Ltd).-Vs.-Abdur Rahman and others | 1 ALR (AD) 65 |
Section 42 |
The provisions of the Code will be applicable so far as the procedure in filing the revision application and the grounds on which revisional Court would interfere in revision with the judgment or the decree passed in an Artha Rin appeal. .....Golzar Hossain (Md) Advocate vs Janata Bank 65 DLR (AD) 101. |
Golzar Hossain (Md) Advocate vs Janata Bank | 65 DLR (AD) 101 |
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]
|
M/S. Orient Trading Corporation =VS= Janata Bank | 9 LM (AD) 170 |
Section 45 |
Section 45—A non-obstante clause has been provided in section 45 of the
Ain empowering the Adalat to afford the parties to resolve the dispute
amicably at any stage. This shows the intention of the legislature that
despite the sale of the property if the execution case is not finally
disposed of, the Adalat has power to resolve the matter even at a later
stage of the proceedings for ends of justice. .....Jahangir Kabir Chowdhury
vs Bangladesh, 22 BLC (AD) 139.
|
22 BLC (AD) 139 | Jahangir Kabir Chowdhury vs Bangladesh |
Section 47 |
Fraudulently mortgaged the said property by way of security against the loan obtained by him from Janata Bank, Narayanganj by forging the signature of other co-sharers without any knowledge of the said respondent Nos. 1-3 or their predecessors. The said Bank filed Artha Rin Mortgage Suit No. 67 of 1995 claiming Tk. 8,50,000 as principal amount and Tk. 67,58,557.25 as interest in violation of section 47 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and obtained a decree from the Artha Rin Adalat and started the said execution case in which the said property was advertised for sale in auction. .....Janata Bank vs Rezwanul Haque, 5 ADC 996. |
Janata Bank vs Rezwanul Haque | 5 ADC 996 |
Sections 47 and 6(2) |
Power to do complete justice—We cannot just (5)02 bas Tan be a silent spectator to a glaring prima-facie illegality which has came to our knowledge and which does not require any determination of fact and consider it a fit and proper case to invoke Article 104 of the Constitution to interfere with the respective decree of the Adalat passed in the respective suit so far as it relates to allowing the claim of the plaintiff-Bank more than 200% over the principal amount for doing complete justice by ignoring the provision of section 47 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and following a totally wrong procedure in entertaining and registering the plaint in violation of section 6(2) of the Ain, 2003. .....Rupali Bank Ltd vs Md Shamser Ali, 69 DLR (AD) 366. |
Rupali Bank Ltd vs Md Shamser Ali | 69 DLR (AD) 366 |
Section 47 r/w sec.30 |
Final notice–– On plain reading of the said notice, it has been
disclosed that it was a mere request to the borrower. The appellant-bank
only reminded the plaintiff-respondent for adjustment of the loan money
borrowed by him. Though it was a final notice served upon the
plaintiff-respondent, it did not create any cause of action so that the
plaintiff-respondent could have been aggrieved to file a suit for
declaration upon the said final notice to be illegal, void, malafide and
not binding upon him. Apart from this, it is also seen from the record that
the appellant-bank also issued a legal notice dated 11.03.2013 through its
lawyer after around two years of the final notice dated 21.11.2011 was
issued, which indicates that the bank used to make correspondence with the
plaintiff-respondent to settle and adjust the borrowed money prior to
emerging any cause of action to be preferred in the Artha Rin Adalat as per
Artha Rin Ain. Since the matter was premature one, the suit brought by the
plaintiff-respondent before the civil court was not maintainable in the eye
of law. ––Considered view that the High Court Division made serious
error of law allowing the appeal. Therefore, the present appeal is allowed
without any order as to cost. .....Janata Bank Limited =VS= Al-haj A. K. M.
Moazzem Hossain, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 72]
|
Janata Bank Limited =VS= Al-haj A. K. M. Moazzem Hossain | 15 LM (AD) 72 |
Section 47 |
The Ain, 2003 came into force on 1-5-2003. The provisions of section 47 were effective from on 1-5-2004. The suit was filed on 25-4-2004 and, therefore, the provisions of section 47 of the Ain, were not applicable in the facts of the instant case. .....Monsur Knitting and Hosiery Industries Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat (Civil), 73 DLR (AD) 381 |
Monsur Knitting and Hosiery Industries Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat | 73 DLR (AD) 381 |
Sections 47(1)(12) and 60(3) |
On a mere reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 47 of the Ain, it appears to us that the embargo in making claim by a financial institution more than 200% over the actual interest has been put without making any reservations whatsoever. Similarly if we look at section 60(3) of the Ain, it would appear that the said provisions have also been made in respect of all the suits filed by the financial institutions under the repealed Ain, 1990. Therefore, we do not find any injustice, inequality or unequal treatment to the appellant i.e. he has not been treated unequally in the matter of application of section 47 of the Ain, to attract the provisions of article 27 of the Constitution. .....Humayun Hossain Khan vs Bangladesh 64 DLR (AD) 88. |
Humayun Hossain Khan vs Bangladesh | 64 DLR (AD) 88 |
Section 47(3) |
Fixing the date of hearing—State of emergency.— Held: We are of the view that the High Court Division has not committed any error of law in fixing the date of hearing of the rule which apparently has been done in anticipation of the fact that the present state of emergency may not exist by then. The High Court Division has the discretion to shift the date of hearing if the state of emergency in the country continued beyond the date fixed for hearing of the rule. The petitioner was/is therefore not required to be unduly and overly sensitive in this regard. .....Irshad Hossain vs Bangladesh. 6 ADC 82. |
Irshad Hossain vs Bangladesh | 6 ADC 82 |
Section 47 |
We find substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the leave- petitioners. The observations made by the High Court Division in the impugned order to the effect that section 47 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 is applicable in this case and as such the decree- holder House Building Finance Corporation cannot get any amount more than 3 times of the principal loan amount from the judgment-debtor-petitioner- is wrong. .....House Building Finance Corporation vs. Amena Khatun (Nazmun Ara Sultana J) (Civil) 12 ADC 336 |
House Building Finance Corporation vs. Amena Khatun | 12 ADC 336 |
Section 47, 34(1) |
Against the order of issuance of warrant of arrest dated 25.08.2005 passed by the Joint District Judge and Additional Artha Rin Adalat No.2, Dhaka (respondent No. 1) in Money Execution Case No.28 of 2002 discharging the Rule. .....Faruqur Rahman vs. Joint District Judge (Md. Abdul Aziz J) (Civil) 6 ADC 935 |
Faruqur Rahman vs. Joint District Judge | 6 ADC 935 |
Section 47 |
There is no scope to argue that a plaint of Artha Rin Suit even if not filed along with the affidavit and the advalorem court fee as mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain,2003 can be registered as a Artha Rin Suit. The very language of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, in our opinion, makes it mandatory that a plaint of a Artha Rin Suit has to be filed along with advalorem court fee. Specially where the question of applicability of section 47 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 comes the provision of sub-section (2) of section 6 has to be followed strictly. .....M.A. Bari Talukder vs. Agrani Bank (Nazmun Ara Sultana J) (Civil) 8 ADC 424 |
M.A. Bari Talukder vs. Agrani Bank | 8 ADC 424 |
Section 47(3) |
Challenging section 47(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 (Act VII of 2003) as well as the proceedings of Artha Rin Suit No.315 of 2004. .....Irshad Hossain vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary (Md. Joynul Abedin J) (Civil) 6 ADC 82 |
Irshad Hossain vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary (Md. Joynul Abedin J) (Civil) 6 ADC 82 | 6 ADC 82 |
Sections 47, 50(2) |
The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
|
Rupali Bank Ltd. =VS= Md. Shamser Ali | 10 LM (AD) 28 |
Section 47, 60 (3) |
A discretion/option has been given by the legislature to the plaintiff-bank
to apply the provisions of section 47 of the Ain, 2003 even before its
coming into operation in respect of the suit filed under the Ain, 1990–
The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 came into force on 01.05.2003. However, the
provisions of section 47 were effective from on 01.05.2004. The instant
suit was filed on 25.04.2004 and, therefore, the provisions of section 47
of the Ain, 2003 were not applicable in the facts of the instant case.
|
Messers Monsur Knitting and Hosiery Industries Ltd. =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, Sylhet | 10 LM (AD) 338 |
Section 47 |
Since a discretion/option has been given by the legislature to the plaintiff-bank to apply the provisions of section 47 of the Ain, 2003 even before its coming into operation in respect of the suit filed under the Ain, 1990 there is no bar on the part of the bank to exclude the amount claimed by it in the suit over 200% of the actual amount of loan disbursed by it to the appellant. And if so advised, the appellant may apply to the plaintiff-bank for deducting the amount claimed by it over 200% of the actual amount of loan availed of by him by applying the discretion given to it by section 47 of the Ain of 2003. …..Humayun Hossain Khan.-Vs.-Government of Bangladesh and others,1 ALR (AD)127 |
Humayun Hossain Khan.-Vs.-Government of Bangladesh and others | 1 ALR (AD)127 |
Sections 47, 60 |
Charging of interest– The banks have been given discretion as to the
applicability of the provision of section 47 which limits the charging of
interest of more than 200 percent of the principal loan amount and that
from the provision of section 47 it appears that the intention of the
legislature is to give relief to the borrowers in respect of actual of
interest. .....Humayun Hossain Khan =VS= Ministry of Finance, BD, (Civil),
2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 585]
|
Humayun Hossain Khan =VS= Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh | 12 LM (AD) 585 |
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 | 1 ALR (AD) 127 |
Sections 47and 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 |
Humayun Hossain Khan.-Vs.-Government of Bangladesh and others | 1 ALR (AD)127 |
Section 47 |
Whether the plaintiff-Bank was legally entitled to claim money more than
200% on the principal amount of the loan and that the Adalat was justified
in allowing the claim of the plaintiff-Bank more than 200% in view of the
provisions of section 47 of the Ain, 2003.
|
Rupali Bank Ltd -Vs.- Md. Shamser Ali and others | 19 ALR (AD) 176-180 |
Section 47 |
It is by now well settled that a writ petition does not lie against the
judgment and decree passed in an artha rin suit.
|
Rupali Bank Ltd -Vs.- Md. Shamser Ali and others | 19 ALR (AD) 176-180 |
Sections 47 and 60(3) |
Since a discretion/option has been given by the legislature to the
plaintiff-bank to apply the provisions of section 47 of the Ain, 2003 even
before its coming into operation in respect of the suit filed under the
Ain, 1990 we do not see any bar on the part of the bank to exclude the
amount claimed by it in the suit over 200% of the actual amount of loan
disbursed by it to the appellant. And if so advised, the appellant may
apply to the plaintiff-bank for deducting the amount claimed by it over
200% of the actual amount of loan availed of by him by applying the
discretion given to it by section 47 of the Ain, 2003”
|
Messers Monsur –Vs.- Learned Joint District Judge | 30 ALR (AD) 56 |
Section 47 |
Applicability of section—Held : Section 47 cannot be given effect to any pending suit filed prior to promulgation of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. [Mr Justice Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman] .....Humayun Hossain Khan vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance 61 DLR (AD) 92. |
Humayun Hossain Khan vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh | 61 DLR (AD) 92 |
Section 47 |
Calculation of interest with the loan money, as a whole, cannot be exceeded
more than 300% of the original loan money. However, limitation of interest
given in the section cannot be challenged by filing civil suit before the
civil court. Artha Rin Adalat Ain is a special law wherein this section has
been inserted for exercise of its object by the Adalat only.
|
Janata Bank Ltd. vs AKM Moazzem Hossain | 76 DLR (AD) 128 |
Section 47 |
How much interest Bank can claim—Held : The plaintiff sanctioned 3 (three) lacs taka only as loan to the petitioner and, as such, bank cannot claim interest more than 6(six) lacs taka from the petitioner in view of Section 47 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. .....Sreemoti Shipra Shaha vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka, 16 MLR (AD) 149. |
Sreemoti Shipra Shaha vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka | 16 MLR (AD) 149 |
Section 47 |
Section 47 became effective one year after the date on which the Artha Rin Adalat Ain came into force—Held In Section 1(3) the word ‘কার্যকর’ has been specifically mentioned and it contains that except Sections 46 and 47, all other sections of 'the Ain' were to become effective from 1st May, 2003 and that section 47(3) provides that the said section 47 is to come into force one year after the said 'Ain' comes into force. In the said Section 47(3) the words ‘বলবৎ’ and ‘কার্যকর’ appear. The word ‘কার্যকর’ means to become effective i.e. coming into force. The word ‘বলবৎ’ as per dictionary meaning (Samsad's Bengali to English Dictionary published by Sahitta Samsud, Calcutta, India) in English, is 'operative', 'enforce' and the word ‘বলবৎ’ means in English language is to put into force. We required the learned Advocate to provide us with the meaning of the word ‘বলবৎ’ in English language and also to place before us any material showing the English meaning of the word ‘বলবৎ’ but he submitted that he could not find the same. Thus we take English meaning of the word (‘বলবৎ’) as 'operative' or 'coming into force' as per the aforementioned Dictionary. The Artha Rin Adalat Ain has been promulgated (জারী হইয়াছে) on 10-3-2003 and by section 1(3) the said Ain was made effective ‘কার্যকর/বলবৎ from 1st May, 2003 except it's Sections 46 and 47, which were made effective from the dates mentioned in the respective sections. Section 47 provides that the said section would come into force one year after the 'Ain' becomes effective or comes into force. The Artha Rin Adalat Ain consists of 60 sections and out of those 60 sections, 58 sections came into force with effect from 1-5-2003 as mentioned in section 1(3) and the rest two sections i.e. sections 46 and 47 came into force on the dates mentioned in the respective sections. The date 10-3-2003 is the date of promulgation (জারী হইয়াছে) of the law and the date mentioned in section 1(3) of the Ain are the dates on which the said law came into force or became effective. In the premises we are of the view that Section 47 s we are of the view that became effective one year after the date on which the Artha Rin Adalat Ain came into force, which is on 1-5-2003, and thus the provisions of Section 47 came into force with effect from 1st May, 2004. .....K.M Muzahid Islam vs Bangladesh. 6 ADC 865. |
K.M Muzahid Islam vs Bangladesh | 6 ADC 865 |
Section 47 |
There is no scope to argue that a plaint of Artha Rin Suit even if not filed along with the affidavit and the advalorem court fee as mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 can be registered as a Artha Rin Suit. The very language of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003, in our opinion, makes it mandatory that a plaint of a Artha Rin Suit has to be filed along with advalorem court fee. Specially where the question of applicability of section 47 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 comes the provision of sub-section (2) of section 6 has to be followed strictly. Section 47 of the Artha Rin Adalat A 2003 has given the borrowers a special privilege of getting remission of interest exceeding 200% of the principal loan amount and this privilege has been made effective from 1-5-2004. Giving of a liberal meaning to sub section (2) of section 6 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 will deprive the borrowers of this special privilege which has been granted to them by a statute. Since in the present case the advalorem court fee was filed on 11-5-2004 the plaint has to be deemed to have been filed and registered on that very date i.e. on 11-5-2004. So, in the circumstances the defendant-petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of section 47 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. .....M.A Bari Talukder vs Agrani Bank, VIII ADC 424. |
M.A Bari Talukder vs Agrani Bank | 8 ADC 424 |
Section 48 |
This provision in section 48 of the Ain is limited only to count the time for disposal of cases having no connection whatsoever with the period prescribed for filing appeal, not of making deposit as required under section 41 of the Ain. .....Peninsular Shipping Service Ltd vs Faruque Paint and Varnish Manufacturing Co Ltd 59 DLR (AD) 26. |
Peninsular Shipping Service Ltd vs Faruque Paint and Varnish Manufacturing Co Ltd | 59 DLR (AD) 26 |
Section 48 |
Section 48—Time for disposal—filing Appeal—Held: The position shall
be more clear if we read sections 45 to 46 prescribing various period as to
filing/disposal of case in the aforesaid separate chapter i.e. chapter
VIII. In view of what has been stated above we are of the view that,
acceptance of the argument of the respondents that section 48 is applicable
in case of filing the appeal shall lead to a dangerous effect falling upon
the legal jurisprudence of the country and such a view is there fore
unwarranted. [Mr. Justice Amirul Kabir Chowdhury] .....Peninsular Shipping
Service Ltd vs Faruque Paint and Varnish Manufacturing Co. Ltd., 12 MLR
(AD) 1 = 59 DLR (AD) 26.
|
12 MLR (AD) 1 = 59 DLR (AD) 26 | Peninsular Shipping Service Ltd vs Faruque Paint and Varnish Manufacturing Co. Ltd |
Section 49(3) |
Auction purchaser, a third party, is directed against the judgment and order arising out of Artha Jari Case..... (1) 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, the High Court Division fell an error in allowing the judgment-debtor to pay the dccrectal amount by installments in failing to consider that the property had already been sold in auction to the appellant and thereby he had acquired a valuable right in the, said property, which right could not be taken away without affording him an opportunity of being heard. .....Farid Uddin Mahmud vs. Md. Saidur Rahman (S.K. Sinha J)(Civil) 8 ADC 196 |
Farid Uddin Mahmud vs. Md. Saidur Rahman | 8 ADC 196 |
Section 49 |
Section 49—Section 49 authorizes the Adalat to pass appropriate order
that if it deems fit on the application of the Judgment-debtor to afford
him to pay the decreetal amount by four equal installments in a year. Even
if the decree-holder agrees, the Adalat may allow to repay the dues within
three years in twelve equal installments. .....Jahangir Kabir Chowdhury vs
Bangladesh, 22 BLC (AD) 139.
|
Jahangir Kabir Chowdhury vs Bangladesh | 22 BLC (AD) 139 |
Section 50(3) |
Appellate Court has jurisdiction and authority to waive interest, during
the pendency of the suit, if the Court thinks doing so would be just and
proper.
|
Janata Bank Ltd. -Vs.- Messars Betka Poultry and Dairy Complex and others | 8 ALR (AD) 193-196 |
Section 50(2) |
Rate of interest—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. .....Rajib Traders vs Artha Rin Adalat as well as Joint District Judge, Additional Court, Jessore, 68 DLR (AD) 10. |
Rajib Traders vs Artha Rin Adalat as well as Joint District Judge, Additional Court, Jessore | 68 DLR (AD) 10 |
Section 50(2) |
Section 50(2)—Since the matter is still pending as a money execution case
before the Adalat, what rate of interest is to be awarded on appeal before
the High Court Division or the Appellate Division is not material in the
case. However, the rate of interest to be awarded for the period from
filing of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount is clearly
12% as from 31-3-2010. Interest was calculated at 8% for the period before
the Act came into force in force in 2010 because the Ordinance enhancing
the rate to 12% was not approved by Parliament from 25-2-2009 to 31-3-2010.
.....Rajib Traders vs Artha Rin Adalat as well as Joint District Judge,
Additional Court, Jessore, 68 DLR (AD) 10.
|
Rajib Traders vs Artha Rin Adalat as well as Joint District Judge, Additional Court, Jessore | 68 DLR (AD) 10 |
Section 50(2) |
The interest pendente lite is to be calculated in accordance with the rates applicable at the relevant times after the filing of the suit. The judgment-debtor will be liable to interest at the increased rate for bringing the matter to the High Court Division by way of writ petition in spite of the fact that the incorrectly claimed rate of interest in Artha Zari Case had been amended by an application filed. .....Premier Bank Ltd vs Mampower Ltd represented by its Managing Director, Engr Manzurul Ahsan Munshi (Civil) 27 BLC (AD) 68 |
Premier Bank Ltd vs Mampower Ltd represented by its Managing Director, Engr Manzurul Ahsan Munshi | 27 BLC (AD) 68 |
Section 50(2) |
Calculate interest pendente lite– The High Court Division correctly
identified the rates of interest that should have been used in calculating
the total sum due, but fell into error in not allowing interest for the
period from the date of the decree till filing of the amended plaint.
|
Premier Bank Limited =VS= Mampower Ltd., Dhaka | 10 LM (AD) 319 |
Section 50 |
Bank interest will have to be calculated according to the prevailing
interest rate.
|
M/S. Rajib Traders =VS= Artha Rin Adalat & another | 1 LM (AD) 186 |
Section 50 |
Section 50— Bank interest will have to be calculated according to the
prevailing interest rate.
|
M/S. Rajib Traders -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat DJ Jessore and anothe | 7 ALR (AD) 14 |
Section 57 |
The High Court Division without considering the lawful order of the learned
Judge of the Adalat, without issuing any rule nisi and without giving any
opportunity to the Bank for hearing, illegally disposed of the Writ
Petition with unlawful direction by giving complete relief to the Writ
Petitioners and, as such, it is liable to be set aside.
|
Southeast Bank Limited -Vs.- Laila Hossain and others | 20 ALR (AD) 64-66 |
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. |
Md Salim Hossain vs Artha Rin Adalat Munshigonj | 17 BLC (AD) 154 |
Section 57 |
High Court Division hold that the contention of the learned advocate of the
petitioner that having the first charge over the mortgaged property the
petitioner is a necessary party in the subsequent suit filed by the
respondent No. 2, is not tenable in the eye of law as in the subsequent
suit the only issue for adjudication is where respondent No. 4 owes any
money to the respondent No. 2 and to adjudicate this issue the presence of
the petitioner is not necessary at all and the petitioner can make prayer
to the Artha Rin Adalat concerned at proper stage for satisfaction of its
decreetal amount first from the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged
properties in question and the Artha Rin Adalat concerned at may that
prayer under section 57 of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.
|
City Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat Barisal | 17 BLT (AD) 209 |
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. |
Md. Salim Hossain vs Artha Rin Adalat Munshigonj | 17 BLC (AD) 154 |
Section 57 |
Several applications for setting aside the auction sale—Held: The application filed for setting aside the auction sale under section 57 of the Ain after disposal an application filed earlier under Order 21, rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not entertainable and further the application filed under section 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat, 2003 is also not maintainable, in view of the fact that the Judgment-debtor filed earlier another application under Order 21, rule 98 read with section 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 for setting aside the auction sale unsuccessfully. .....Md Mansur Rahman vs Abdul Mannan Sardar, 7 ADC 623. |
Md Mansur Rahman vs Abdul Mannan Sardar | 7 ADC 623 |
Section 57 |
Remission of interest—The writ petitioner cannot get the advantage of the wrong in calculation—The interest paid before the remission of interest shall be adjusted with the principal amount. The petitioner is not entitled to get any advantage of the wrong in calculation by the Bank official. .....Ebrahim Steel Re—Rolling Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Bangladesh. 15 MLR (AD) 190. |
Ebrahim Steel Re—Rolling Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Bangladesh | 15 MLR (AD) 190 |
Section 57 |
As there was alternative remedy available against the expert decree under section 6(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 a party (defendant) cannot have recourse to inherent jurisdiction of the Court under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. .....Golden Re-Rolling Industries Ltd vs Subordinate Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 60 DLR (AD) 38. |
Golden Re-Rolling Industries Ltd vs Subordinate Judge, Artha Rin Adalat | 60 DLR (AD) 38 |
Section 57 |
Section 57—Section 57 of the Ain is another enabling provision empowering
the Adalat to pass any order for securing the ends of justice. It is a
power to act ex debito justitiae to do that real and substantial justice
for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent the abuse of
the process of the court. It lengthens the hands of the Adalat to pass any
order to do justice when there is no other remedy open to the aggrieved
party. When the Ain itself recognizes the existence of the inherent power
of the Adalat, there is no question of implying any powers outside the
limits of the Ain. .....Jahangir Kabir Chowdhury vs Bangladesh, 22 BLC (AD)
139.
|
Jahangir Kabir Chowdhury vs Bangladesh | 22 BLC (AD) 139 |
Section 57 |
Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 praying for adding them as party in the above suit stating that the properties describes in schedule Kha (1) of both the suits were mortgaged with the petitioner on 12.08.1997 by a registered deed of mortgaged dated 12.08.1997 accompanied by a registered power of attorney and also by deposit of original title deeds and that schedule Kha (2) of Artha Rin Suit No. 03 of 2006. .....The City Bank Limited vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Barisal (Md. Tafazzul Islam J) (Civil) 6 ADC 563 |
The City Bank Limited vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Barisal | 6 ADC 563 |
Section 57 |
We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocate, the impugned judgment and the materials on record. This Division came to a finding that an application filed for setting aside the auction sale under section 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 after dis¬posal of an application filed earlier under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 25.08.2005 was not maintainable. This Division also found that the application filed under section 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 was also not maintainable because the judgment-debtor earlier filed another application under Order 21 Rule 90 read with section 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 for setting aside the auction sale unsuccessfully. .....Md. Mansur Rahman vs. Abdul Mannan Sarder (Syed Mahmud Hossain J)(Civil) 10 ADC 309 |
Md. Mansur Rahman vs. Abdul Mannan Sarder | 10 ADC 309 |
Section 57 |
Our answer is very simple and is that mere failure to raise objection as to the jurisdiction of a Court to hear and try a suit or a case or in other words, mere surrendering to the jurisdiction of a Court, jurisdiction cannot be conferred to a Court if it is found that the Court which heard or disposed of the suit or the case had no jurisdiction to hear such suit or case as the case may be. Because the decree or order passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and such nullity, in no way, is curable or immune from being challenged. .....Md. Selim Hossain vs. Shahabuddin Ahmed (Md Abdul Wahhab Miah J) (Civil) 11 ADC 291 |
Md. Selim Hossain vs. Shahabuddin Ahmed | 11 ADC 291 |
Section 57 |
Complying with the provisions of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, and under direction of the Executing Court an auction-sale notice for sale of the mortgaged property was published in two daily newspapers and the judgment debtor-petitioner hereof entered appearance in the execution case on 08.08.2005 and prayed for adjournment of the sale with a plea of compromise and that the Executing Court allowed time fixing 11.08.2005 for filing compromise petition but the judgment debtor-petitioner did not file the required compromise and hence the Executing Court fixed 18.08.2005 for auction and on that date the auction purchaser-respondent No. 1 hereof participated in the bid and his bid, being highest, was accepted. Accordingly he deposited 25% of the bid money on that date and subsequently deposited the balance of the bid money. Thereafter the auction sale was made final. .....Md. Mansur Rahman vs. Abdul Mannan Sardar (Shah Abu Naveem Mominur Rahman J) (Civil) 7 ADC 623 |
Md. Mansur Rahman vs. Abdul Mannan Sardar | 7 ADC 623 |
Section 57 |
From the facts as discussed, hereinabove, it appears that the petitioners' first application for setting aside the auction sale held on 06.09.2006 was filed within time by making the statutory deposit to the tune of TK. 14,17,500.00, but because of miscalculation there was a shortfall of TK. 1/76,114 which they already deposited by filing application on 28.01.2009 along with the other deposit and thus, there was due and substantial compliance of the provisions of Order XXI, rule 89 of the Code after disposal of Writ Petition No.3326 of 2007, but the executing Court refused to accept the same on the view that the shortfall was deposited after long 2(two) years from the date of auction sale. Moreover, it appears that in the schedule of the property sold in auction the fact of existence of a two storied house was also omitted which is a material omission. .....Md. Shajahan vs. Secretary, represented by the Ministry of Law (Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah J) (Civil) 8 ADC 685 |
Md. Shajahan vs. Secretary, represented by the Ministry of Law | 8 ADC 685 |
Section 57 |
Held; The executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. The decree was passed against the writ-respondent Nos.2 to 5 also and, therefore, the executing Court had no jurisdiction to strike out their names from the execution case. .....Sheikh Sekander Ali & Ors Vs. Agrani Bank Ltd. & Ors 24BLT (AD)01 |
Sheikh Sekander Ali & Ors Vs. Agrani Bank Ltd | 24BLT (AD)01 |
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]
|
Parvin Akter =VS= Eastern Bank Ltd. | 5 LM (AD) 162 |
Section 57 |
Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
|
Mansur Rahman(Md.) =VS= Abdul Mannan Sardar | 12 LM (AD) 571 |
Section 57 |
Section 57— Section 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 for dismissal of the Execution Case...... (2) “ অত্রাদালতের অভিমত এই যে, অত্রাদালতকে শুধুমাত্র ডিক্রীকেই অনানয়ন করিতে হইবে। মূল মামলায় কিভাবে ডিক্রী হইয়াছে তাহা জারী মামলায় দ্রষ্টব্যের নহে। দায়ীক বিবাদীপক্ষ ঐ ডিক্রীকে অবৈধ বলিতে চাহিলে তাহা রদ রহিতের জন্য বিধি মোতাবেক অগ্রসর হইতে হইবে। এইরূপ অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন-২০০৩ এর ৫৭ ধারায় একটি দরখাস্ত প্রদান করিয়া কোন প্রতিকার পাইবে না। সুতরাং ৩নং দায়িকের অত্র দরখাস্ত নামঞ্জুর করা গেল।” .....K.M. Muzahid Islam vs. Bangladesh, Secretary Ministry of Law (Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman J)(Civil) 6 ADC 865 |
K.M. Muzahid Islam vs. Bangladesh, Secretary Ministry of Law (Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman J) | 6 ADC 865 |
Section 60 |
Sale of pledge goods at the stage of peremptory hearing–Held: The Suit was instituted on 3-4-03 and on 25-10-05 the leave Petitioner filed an application under sections 12(2) and 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 praying for a direction upon the plaintiff-bank for sale of the pledged goods and to adjust the claim amount with the sale proceeds of the pledged goods and fix the actual claim amount and that the Artha Rin Adalat by its order No. 44 dated 25-10-2005 rejected the application observing that examination of the witnesses are being in progress and that the provision for sale of the pledge goods before filing of the suit was not in the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 and the said provision has been provided in Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and that the suit has been filed prior to promulgation of Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 and thus there is no bar in proceeding with the suit without sale of the pledged goods and adjustment of the sale proceeds thereof with the claim amount in the suit. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the learned Advocate as well as provision of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 particularly sections 12(2) and 12(6) read with sections 57 and 60 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and the reasonings given by the Artha Rin Adalat as appearing in impugned order, we are of the view that the High Court Division has correctly interpreted the law and passed the order in accordance with law, which do not call for any interference. .....United Leather International vs Artha Rin Adalat, 17 BLT (AD) 204. |
United Leather International vs Artha Rin Adalat | 17 BLT (AD) 204 |
Section 60 |
The words ‘‘বিচারাধীন সকল মামলা’’ as provided in section 60(3) of Ain, 2003 also include pending execution cases and as such after coming into force of Ain " 2003, all pending execution cases instituted under the provisions of Ain 1990, stood transferred to the Artha Rin Adalats constituted under Ain, 2003 and accordingly all such execution case, so transferred, would be proceeded as per provision of new Ain 2003 and accordingly the Execution Case No. 141 of 2002 was validly transferred to the Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka constituted under Ain 2003 and the issuance of certificate under section 33(5) of Ain 2003 and the impugned order dated 14-7-2003 under section 33(a) of Ain 2003 does not suffer from any illegality and further the contents of the instant writ petition also show that the petitioners, who appeared in the above Title suit No. 199 of 1997 and also filed written statement, obviously knew about the judgment and decree passed therein against them and also the starting of the above Execution Case no. 141 of 2002 against them but inspite of that they remained silent for along period and moreover the impugned order was passed on 14-7-2005 and the writ petition was filed on 27-2-2007, long after, and for this inordinate delay the writ petition is also not maintainable. .....M/s. Cromvege Tannaries Ltd. vs Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka, VI ADC 594. |
M/s. Cromvege Tannaries Ltd. vs Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka | 6 ADC 594 |
Section 60(3) and 47 |
Since a discretion/option has been given by the legislature to the plaintiff-bank to apply the provisions of section 47 of the Ain, 2003 even before its coming into operation in respect of the suit filed under the Ain, 1990 we do not see any bar on the part of the bank to exclude the amount claimed by it in the suit over 200% of the actual amount of loan disbursed by it to the appellant. And if so advised, the appellant may apply to the plaintiff-bank for deducting the amount claimed by it over 200% of the actual amount of loan availed of by him by applying the discretion given to it by section 47 of the Ain, 2003. .....Humayun Hossain Khan vs. Government of Bangladesh (Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah J) (Civil) 10 ADC 318 |
Humayun Hossain Khan vs. Government of Bangladesh | 10 ADC 318 |
Section 60(6) |
Plaintiff instituted Title Suit for realization of Tk.2, 52,268.50 only as on by selling the mortgaged property owned by the defendant the present petitioner. .....National Board of Revenue represented vs. Dulal Chandra Bhoumik (Md. Abdul Matin J) (Civil) 7 ADC 548 |
National Board of Revenue represented vs. Dulal Chandra Bhoumik | 7 ADC 548 |
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]
|
Shahidul Islam =VS= Artha Rin Adalat | 4 LM (AD) 329 |
Section 60(3) |
Section 60(3)— 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. .....Shahidul Islam & others -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and
others (Civil) 20 ALR (AD) 70-71
|
Shahidul Islam & others -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and others | 20 ALR (AD) 70-71 |