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]

ধারা ২(গ)— অর্থঋণ আদালত, ঋণ আদায়ের মামলা— আপীল বিভাগের মতে, বাদীর, বিবাদীর বিরুদ্ধে দুইটি দাবী ছিল। বিবাদী নং-১ ও ২ উভয়ই ঋণগ্রহীতা। বিবাদী নং-৩ ও ৪ ত্রিপক্ষীয় চুক্তির পক্ষ এবং চুক্তির মাধ্যমে ঋণের অর্থ দ্বারা পণ্য ক্রয় করে ৪নং বিবাদীর কোল্ডস্টরেজে রেখে ছিল। ৩ ও ৪নং বিবাদীর দায় সম্পর্কে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের সিদ্ধান্ত হলো, ত্রিপক্ষীয় চুক্তিতে ৩ ও ৪নং বিবাদীর দায় থাকলেও উক্ত দায় ঋণ সম্পর্কিত ছিল না এবং বাদী ব্যাংকের উপযুক্ত ব্যবস্থা হবে ৩ ও ৪নং বিবাদীর বিরুদ্ধে অর্থ ও ক্ষতিপূরণ আদায়ের মামলা করা। ১ ও ২ নং বিবাদী সম্পর্কে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের সিদ্ধান্ত ছিল যে, বাদী ব্যাংক, ১ ও ২ নং বিবাদীর অনুকূলে মোরাবাহা লোন মঞ্জুর করেছিল। কিন্তু তাদের বিরুদ্ধে ঋণের অর্থ বকেয়ার অভিযোগ ছিল না। হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ বিচারিক আদালতের সিদ্ধান্তকে বহাল রেখে ছিল। কারণ ১ ও ২নং বিবাদী অবশিষ্ট ৮৪৪ ব্যাগ আলু পায়নি বিধায় উক্ত পণ্যে অর্থ পরিশোধে তাদের কোনো দায় নেই। ফলে আপীল বিভাগ, অবৈধ কিছু না পাওয়ায় লিভ টু আপীলের সিভিল পিটিশনটি খারিজ করে দেয়। .....Islami Bank =VS= M/S Ahsanuddin Ahmed & others, [1 LM (AD) 82] ....View Full Judgment

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.
The Appellate Division held that it is a special law and this law shall prevail over any other law and for the purpose of realization of ‘ঋণ’ by a financial institution, the suit shall be filed and adjudicated upon by the Artha Rin Adalat constituted under the said Ain. These provisions do not prohibit specifically or impliedly a citizen to establish his title to in a civil court in respect of any property which has been mortgaged with a financial institution. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable in filing and adjudicating upon a suit under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, if those provisions are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Ain. In filing a suit against the principal debtor, the financial institution may implead the third party mortgagor or the third party guarantor, if he is involved in the ‘ঋণ’. These are three persons against whom a suit of the nature can be filed seeking relief. There is no scope under the scheme of the Ain to implead in the category of defendants other than those mentioned above or any third party can add as defendant. The judgment, order or decree of the Artha Rin Adalat can be jointly and severally executable. The execution proceeding shall be proceeded against all judgment debtors subject to the condition that the Adalat shall execute the decree against the principal debtor and sub-sequently, against the third party mortgagor or the third party guarantor for the recovery of the loan, as the case may be. There is a second proviso providing that if the third party mortgagor or third party guarantor repays the total amount of dues, the decree can be transferred in their favour and that they also can realize the total amount against the principal debtor. …..Md. Sekandar and another -Vs.- Janata Bank Ltd. and others (Civil) 9 ALR (AD) 81-94

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]

ধারা ৫ ও ৬— বিপরীত দাবী বা ঋণ গ্রহীতার পৃথক মামলা-অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন প্রণীত হয়েছে মূলত আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠান কর্তৃক প্রদত্ত ঋণের অর্থ আদায়ের মামলার শুনানি জন্য এবং আইনে বিচার পদ্ধতির বিধান বর্ণিত হয়েছে। সে কারণে আইনে আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠানকে বিশেষ ক্ষমতা দেওয়া হয়েছে এবং আইনের উদ্দেশ্যে হলো আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠানের ঋণ আদায়ের সকল মামলা অর্থঋণ আদালতে দায়ের করা। এই বিশেষাধিকার অন্যকোনোভাবে বাতিল বা পরিহার করা যাবে না। আবার এখতিয়ারের অনুপ্রবিষ্ট বা বিপরীত দাবী, সমন্বয় অথবা ঋণগ্রহীতার পৃথক মামলার দ্বারা কোনোভাবেই বিচ্যুতি সম্ভব না। ....View Full Judgment

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

Eastern Bank Limited =VS= Sirajuddula(Md) 9 LM (AD) 566
Sections 6, 12, 27, 33 and 38

Realization of loan money—
The High Court Division failed to consider and appreciate the cardinal principle of law that no one should be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong action.
Arbitration during pendency of the suit. If a judgment-debtor comes up to settle the dispute amicably during pendency of the suit and even at the stage of execution, that should be encouraged.
Section 33 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 is not a bar to make any settlement, outside the Court, if the parties agree to do so.
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 Appellate Division is of the view that the High Court Division in deciding the merit of the Rule Nisi proceeded in a wrong way and thereby committed error of law in passing the impugned judgment and order. Since, the learned Advocates for the respective parties have made their submissions at length on the issues involved in the case, the Appellate Division is inclined to dispose of the leave petition to avoid further delay in disposal of the case. 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 and others (Civil) 27 ALR (AD) 211

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—
On plain reading of Section 34(1) of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 it is palpable that 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, 2003, if the borrower is a company, the natural person consisting of whom the said company is deemed to have been formed, shall, severally and jointly be liable to confinement in civil prison.
The Appellate Division held that admittedly respondent No. 1 in all Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal, is the shareholder, director, chairman, mortgagor and guarantor of the loan and respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 in Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal No. 2884 of 2022 are the mortgagors and guarantors of the loan and the concerned Artha Rin Adalat on conclusion of trial in respective Artha Rin Adalat Cases, decreed all the cases. Thereafter, Artha Rin Execution Cases were filed against the respondent No. 1 in all Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal and respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 in Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal No. 2884 of 2022 and after issuing warrant of arrest they have been arrested and was ordered to be confined in civil prison for a period of 6(six) months as per Section 34(5) of Ain, 2003. Again, under Section 34(5) of Ain, 2003 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. In view of the discussion made above, the Appellate Division finds merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel of the petitioners. Therefore, the Appellate Division holds that the impugned orders dated 17.10.2022 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petitions No. 11693-11696 of 2022 warrant interference by the High Court Division and as such the same have no countenance in the eye of law. All the Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal are disposed of. 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, and others 28 ALR (AD)101

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]

ধারা ৬(৫) ও ১২(৮)— বন্ধকী সম্পত্তির নিলাম বিক্রি-হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ উল্লেখিত আইনের বিধানের সঙ্গে ঘটনা ও পরিস্থিতি বিবেচনায় করায় বর্তমান মামলাটি প্রভাবিত হয়েছে। আমাদের বিবেচিত সিদ্ধান্ত হলো, এই আইনের বিধান শুধুমাত্র মূখ্য দেনাদার এবং তৃতীয়পক্ষ কর্তৃক সম্পত্তি বন্ধক। এই মামলায় নিঃসন্দেহে মূখ্য দেনাদার কর্তৃক কোনো সম্পত্তির বন্ধক দেওয়া হয়নি। কিন্তু পিটিশনার সম্পত্তি বন্ধক দিয়েছিল। বাদী ব্যাংকের অনুকূলে মূখ্য দেনাদার কর্তৃক অন্যকোনো সম্পত্তি বন্ধক দেওয়া না হলে পিটিশনার-দেনাদারের বন্ধকী সম্পত্তি বিক্রয় করে ডিক্রির অর্থ আদায় করতে হবে। ফলে ডিক্রির তফসিলে উল্লেখিত সম্পত্তিসহ বন্ধকী সম্পত্তি বিক্রয় করতে আদালত বাধ্য। মূখ্য দেনাদার ব্যাংকের অনুকূলে কোনো সম্পত্তি বন্ধক দেয়নি বরং বর্তমান আপীলকারী তার সম্পত্তি জামানত হিসাবে বন্ধক দিয়েছিল এবং ফলে বর্তমান বাদীর বন্ধকীকৃত সম্পত্তি নিলামের ব্যবস্থা করে আইনের ব্যত্যয় করেনি। .....Abdus Sattar Miah =VS= Bangladesh, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 461] ....View Full Judgment

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

ধারা ৬(৫)— তৃতীয়পক্ষ- অর্থ আদায়ের মামলায় তৃতীয়পক্ষ, দায়িকের বিপরীতে গুরুত্বপূর্ন বা উপযুক্ত পক্ষ না। ফলে ১৯ বা ৪১ কোনো ধারায়ই বন্ধকী সম্পত্তি সম্পর্কিত তৃতীয়পক্ষের কষ্টের প্রতিকারে কোনো বিধান রাখেনি। কেউ প্রতারণা বা জালিয়াতি করে বা মিথ্যা তথ্যের ভিত্তিতে অন্যের সম্পত্তি বন্ধক রেখে ব্যাংক থেকে ঋণ গ্রহণ করলে আদালত বিষয়টির নিষ্পত্তি করতে পারবে না। ৬(৫) ধারায় নির্দিষ্ট করে দেওয়া হয়েছে, কাদের বিরুদ্ধে মামলা করা যাবে। উল্লেখিত ব্যক্তি ব্যতীত অন্যকোনো ব্যক্তিকে মামলায় বিবাদি করার সুযোগ নেই। .....Sekandar (Md.) =VS= Janata Bank Ltd., (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 448] ....View Full Judgment

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.
Held: We do not accept the observation and findings of the High Court Division that the provision of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 is a mere guideline and directory since it has not stated the consequence of non-compliance of this provision of law. 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 subsection (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 Ain, 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. .....MA Bari Talukder vs Agrani Bank, 8 ADC 424.

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]

ধারা ৬(৫), ১২ ও ১৩— মূখ্য দেনাদারের বিরুদ্ধে ডিক্রি কার্যকরণের মামলায় জামিনদার-দায়িকের অর্থঋণ আদালতে আবেদন করে তফসিলে বর্ণিত সম্পত্তির সংশোধনের আদেশ বাতিল করার কোনো কর্তৃত্ব নেই। ডিক্রি প্রদান এবং কার্যকরের মামলার পূর্বে অভিযোগ করা হয়েছিল যে, ব্যাংকের অনুমতি নিয়ে মূখ্য দেনাদার ৫টি বাস বিক্রি করে ব্যাংকের ঋণ সমন্বয় করেছে। এই পরিস্থিতিতে অর্থঋণ আদালতের ৩৩ ধারায় কোনো প্রশ্ন উত্থাপিত হয়নি। ব্যাংকের দাবি ছিল ডিক্রি কার্যকরের মামলা বিচারাধীন অবস্থায় অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ধারা ১২ ও ৩৩ ধারা অনুসারে তর্কিত বাসের বিক্রয়ের জন্য কোনো নিলাম অনুষ্ঠিত হয়নি। ফলে লিভ টু আপীলের সিভিল পিটিশনটি নিষ্পত্তি এবং হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের তর্কিত রায় ও আদেশ বাতিল করা হয়। .....Midland Bank Limited =VS= Nasima Aktar, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 200] ....View Full Judgment

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]

ধারা ৬(৫) ও ৩৪— ঋণ গ্রহীতাও জামিনদারের বিরুদ্ধে ঋণের বকেয়া স্থিতি আদায়- ২০০৩ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালতের ৩৪ ধারা অনুসারে মূখ্য দায়িক ডিক্রির ২৫% অর্থ জমা না দিলে জামিন পাবে না। ডিক্রির ২৫% অর্থ আদালতে জমা না দিলে রীট পিটিশনার জামিনে মুক্ত হতে পারবে না এবং বন্ডের শর্ত অনুসারে বাকি ডিক্রির বাকি অর্থ ৯০ দিনের মধ্যে জমা দিতে হবে। বিচার করার সময় হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ৩৪ ধারাকে অবজ্ঞা করেছেন। রীটের বিপরীতে হাইকোট বিভাগের জারিকৃত সকল রুল খারিজ করা হয়। ২০২২/২৮৮৪নং লিভ টু আপীলের উল্লেখিত প্রতিবাদী নং-২ থেকে ৪ এবং ২০২২ এর ২৮৮৪/২৮৮৭নং লিভ টু আপীলের প্রতিবাদী নং-১ কে সংশ্লিষ্ট অর্থঋণ আদালতে আত্মসমর্পণ করার নির্দেশ দেয়। .....Rupali Bank Limited =VS= Mahmuda Jaman, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 240] ....View Full Judgment

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
Order I Rule 10
Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
Section 6(5)
There is no provision in the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 which debars a person adversely affected by the decision in an Artha Rin Suit from being added as a party to the suit–– It appears that the appellant-developer of the Civil Appeal No. 176 of 2011 has been adversely affected by the judgment and order dated 19-01-2011 passed by the High Court Division making the rule absolute so far as it relates to setting aside of the Order No. 49 dated 19-01-2009 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Artha Rin Suit No. 7 of 2008 without passing any necessary order for making it as an added party in the suit in the category of defendant. There is no provision in the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 which debars a person adversely affected by the decision in an Artha Rin Suit from being added as a party to the suit. Appellate Division finds substance in the arguments put forward by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 176 of 2011. .....One Bank Ltd. =VS= Chaya Developer (Pvt.) Ltd., (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 482]

ধারা ৬(৫)— অর্থঋণ আদালতের সিদ্ধান্ত দ্বারা বিরূপভাবে প্রভাবিত ব্যক্তিকে মামলার পক্ষভূক্ত হতে বাধা প্রদান করে এমন কোনো বিধান ২০০৩ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালত আইনে নেই। বিবাদী হিসাবে মামলায় অন্তর্ভূক্তির প্রয়োজনীয় আদেশ ছাড়া ২০০৮ সালের ৭নং মামলায় ২নং প্রতিবাদীর প্রদত্ত আদেশ বাতিল করে ১৯-০১-২০১১ খ্রি. তারিখে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের রায় এবং আদেশ দ্বারা ২০১১ সালের ১৭৬ নং সিভিল আপিলের আপীলকারী-ডেভেলপার বিরূপভাবে প্রভাবিত হয়েছে বলে প্রতীয়মান হয়। অর্থঋণ আদালতের সিদ্ধান্ত দ্বারা বিরূপভাবে প্রভাবিত ব্যক্তিকে মামলার পক্ষভূক্ত হতে বাধা প্রদানের কোনো বিধান ২০০৩ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালত আইনে নেই বিধায় আপীল বিভাগ ২০১১ এর ১৭৬ নং সিভিল আপীলে বিজ্ঞ আইনজীবীর উত্থাপিত যুক্তিতে সিদ্ধান্ত গ্রহণের জন্য উপযুক্ত। .....One Bank Ltd. =VS= Chaya Developer (Pvt.) Ltd., (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 482] ....View Full Judgment

One Bank Ltd. =VS= Chaya Developer (Pvt.) Ltd. 14 LM (AD) 482
Section 6

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

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]

ধারা ৬(৫)— ব্যাংক স্বাধীনভাবে মূল দেনাদার ও ঋণের বিপরীত জামানতকৃত সম্পত্তির জামিনদারের বিরুদ্ধে ঋণের অর্থ আদায়ের জন্য মামলা দায়ের করতে পারবে। বাদী ব্যাংক অবশ্যই মূখ্য দেনাদার যেমন, ঋণ গ্রহণকারী কোম্পানির হতে ডিক্রির অর্থ আদায়ের জন্য ব্যবস্থা গ্রহণ করবে এবং মূখ্য দেনাদার অর্থ পরিশোধে ব্যর্থ হলে ডিক্রির অর্থ মূখ্য দেনাদারের সম্পত্তি বিক্রয় বা বাদী ব্যাংকের নিকট এফডিআর নগদায়নের মাধ্যমে অর্থ আদায় করা উচিৎ। ব্যাংক একসাথে স্বাধীনভাবে মূল দেনাদার ও ঋণের বিপরীত জামানতকৃত সম্পত্তির জামিনদারের বিরুদ্ধে ঋণের অর্থ আদায়ের জন্য মামলা দায়ের করতে পারবে। ...Agrani Bank =VS= Hosne Ara Begum(Mrs.), (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 590] ....View Full Judgment

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.
Appellate Division is of the opinion that the impugned judgement and order calls for interference. Accordingly, the impugned judgement and order is set aside and the civil petition for leave to appeal is disposed of. The order of the trial Court allowing the application of the petitioner to be added as party is restored. ...Ali Noor(Md.) =VS= Salim @ Masud Hasan, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 64]

ধারা ৬(৫) ও ১৯— অতিরিক্ত পক্ষ-আইনের ১৯ ধারার অধীন মিসকেস দায়ের পূর্বে আদালত কর্তৃক আইনানুসারে আহুত নিলাম হতে সম্পত্তি ক্রয়ের মাধ্যমে অধিকার সৃষ্টি হয়েছে এবং অতঃপর চূড়ান্ত ডিক্রি প্রদান করা হয়েছে। এভাবেই আদালত সম্পত্তির চূড়ান্ত ভাগ্য নির্ধারন করে। আদালতের সিদ্ধান্ত সম্পত্তির মালিকানার উপর প্রভাব ফেলতে বাধ্য এবং আদালতের প্রক্রিয়ার মাধ্যমে পিটিশনারের সম্পত্তির বৈধ ক্রয়কে প্রভাবিত করবে। বিতর্কিত রায় ও আদেশ প্রদানের ক্ষেত্রে বিষয়টি হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ বিবেচনা করেনি। আপীল বিভাগ মনে করে, বিতর্কিত রায় ও আদেশ হস্তক্ষেপযোগ্য। ফলে বিতর্কিত রায় ও আদেশ বাতিল এবং সিভিল পিটিশন লিভ টু আপীল খারিজ করা হয়। বিচারিক আদালতের কর্তৃক পিটিশনারকে পক্ষভূক্ত করার আবেদন মঞ্জুরের মাধ্যমে আদেশ পূনর্বহাল করা হয়। ...Ali Noor(Md.) =VS= Salim @ Masud Hasan, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 64] ....View Full Judgment

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.

ধারা ৭— দেশের আইনে সমফলপ্রদক প্রতিকার না থাকলে যেকোনো ব্যক্তি সংবিধানের ১০২ অনুচ্ছেদ অনুসারে হাইকোর্টে প্রতিকার প্রার্থনা করতে পারে। ৭ ধারা পর্যালোচনায় প্রতীয়মান হয় যে, বিবাদী-পিটিশনারের জন্য সমফলপ্রদক প্রতিকার ছিল এবং বিবাদী-পিটিশনার আপিলে কিভাবে প্রতিকার হতে বিতাড়িত হয়েছেন এমন কিছুই উল্লেখ করেনি। অর্থঋণ আদালতের রায় ও আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে সুনির্দিষ্ট প্রতিকার হিসাবে আইনে আপিল দায়েরের সুযোগ থাকার পরেও বিবাদী সেটা গ্রহণ না করে প্রতিকারের জন্য রীট পিটিশন দায়ের করতে পারেন না। আইনে বিষয়টি পূর্বে মীমাংসিত থাকলেও মৌলিক অধিকার লঙ্ঘনের কোনো কারণ ছাড়াই বিবাদী সংবিধানের ১০২ অনুচ্ছেদের অধীন অপ্রয়োজনে রীট দায়ের করেছেন। ফলশ্রুতিতে অপ্রয়োজনীয় পিটিশনের কারণে ভারাক্রান্ত হয়ে উচ্চ আদালতের সময় অপচয় হচ্ছে যা বারের বিজ্ঞ সদস্যসহ আদালত সংশ্লিষ্ট সকল অফিসারকে নিরুৎসাহ করা উচিৎ। .....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.

ধারা ৯ ও ১১— অতিরিক্ত লিখিত জবাব-আদালত অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ৯(৪) ধারার অধীন সি.পি কস্ট এর বিপরীতে গ্রহণ করতে পারে এবং ১১ ধারায় আরো বলা হয়েছে যে, লিখিত জবাবের বিপরীতে বাদীর জবাব দিবে। কিন্তু এই আইনের অধীন অতিরিক্ত লিখিত জবাব দাখিলের সুযোগ নেই। .....[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

ধারা ১১— বাদী কর্তৃক লিখিত জবাবের উত্তর দেওয়ার জন্য আইনের ১১ ধারায় বিশেষ বিধান প্রণয়ন করা হয়েছে। অর্থঋণ আদালতে অতিরিক্ত লিখিত জবাব দাখিলের সুযোগ আছে এবং Sultana Jute Mills Ltd. vs Agrani Bank reported in 46 DLR (AD) 174 একই বিষয়ের নিষ্পত্তি হয়েছে। .....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

ধারা ১১(১)(২)— মামলাটি অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ প্রচারের পূর্বে দায়ের করা হয়েছিল এবং বন্ধকী পণ্য বিক্রয় ব্যতীত মামলার প্রক্রিয়ায় কোনো বাধা নেই এবং বিক্রয়ের অর্থে মামলার দাবী সমন্বয় করা যাবে। .....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]

ধারা ১২(৩)— প্রাইভেট ব্যাংক কর্তৃক আহুত নিলাম বিক্রির নোটিশ চ্যালেঞ্জ করে দায়েরকৃত রীটটি বলবৎযোগ্য নয়। এটা প্রতীয়মান হয়েছে যে নিলামটি ০৮.০৭.২০১০ খ্রি. তারিখে অনুষ্ঠিত হয়েছিল এবং নিলাম ক্রয়কারী ৫নং পিটিশনার নিলাম ডাকে সর্বোচ্চ ৬,২১,০০,০০০ টাকার প্রস্তাব করেছিল এবং ১২.০৭.২০১০ খ্রি. তারিখে প্রস্তাবটি গৃহিত হয়েছিল। রীট পিটিশনার ০৭.০৯.২০১৪ খ্রি. তারিখে রীটটি দায়ের করেছিল। কিন্তু রীট দায়েরের ৩ বছর পূর্বে নিলাম অনুষ্ঠিত হলেও তখন চ্যালেঞ্জ করেনি। ফলে ০৯.০৩.২০১৫ খ্রি. তারিখে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের ২০১৪/৮২০২নং রীটের রায় ও আদেশ বাতিল করা হলো। .....Feroz Alom =VS= Syed Akhlaque Hossain, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 420] ....View Full Judgment

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—
The provision of section 33(2) is applicable to the cases of auction sale held in pursuance of the execution of decree of the court and not to the cases of auction sale held under section 12. Zinnatul Ara and others Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 185.

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]

ধারা ১২(৮),৩৩(৫),৩৩(৭) ও ৫৭— ডিক্রিপ্রাপ্ত ব্যক্তি, ৮ নং প্রতিবাদী অনুকূলে রেজিস্ট্রি বিক্রয় দলিলের মাধ্যমে ইতোমধ্যে সম্পত্তি বিক্রয় করেছে এবং সেকারণে সদবিশ্বাসে মূল্যের বিনিময়ে ক্রয়ে হস্তক্ষেপের কোনো সুযোগ নেই। আইন ক্রেতাকে ক্রয় সম্পাদনে সুরক্ষা প্রদান করেছে। মূল্যের বিনিময়ে ক্রয়কৃত সম্পত্তির অধিকার, স্বত্ব এবং স্বার্থ ক্রেতার উপর বর্তায় এবং এতদসংক্রান্ত বিষয়ে কোনো প্রশ্ন উত্থাপন করা যায় না। বিক্রয় প্রক্রিয়ায় কোনো অনিয়ম ও বিশৃঙ্খলা দেখা দিলে দায়িক, ডিক্রিপ্রাপ্ত ব্যাংকের নিকট ক্ষতিপূরণ দাবী করতে পারে। ৬ এডিসি, পাতা নং ৯৭৫ রিপোর্টকৃত মামলায় আপীল বিভাগের নিকট প্রতীয়মান হয়েছে যে, বাদী শেষ পর্যায়ে ফোরক্লোসারের ডিক্রি প্রাপ্ত হয়েছিল এবং দায়িকের বন্ধকী সম্পত্তি উদ্ধারের কোনো অধিকার নেই। আবার ৩৩(৫) ধারার অধীন অর্থঋণ আদালত হতে প্রাপ্ত সার্টিফিকেট জারির পর একই অর্থঋণ আদালত ৫৭ ধারার অধীন আপীলকারীর আবেদন গ্রহণের কোনো ক্ষমতা নেই। কারণ ৫৭ ধারা শুধুমাত্র আইনের অন্যকোন বিধান পর্যাপ্ত না হলেই কেবল প্রয়োগ করা যায়। এই মামলায় আইনের ৩৩(৫) ধারার অধীন ডিক্রিপ্রাপ্ত ব্যক্তি সার্টিফিকেট ইস্যু করার পর ৮নং প্রতিবাদী মোঃ রফিকের অনুকূলে রেজিস্ট্রিকৃত দলিল মূলে বিক্রয় করেছিল এবং সেকারনে মূল্যের বিনিময়ে সদবিশ্বাসে সম্পত্তি ক্রয়ের বিরুদ্ধে হস্তক্ষেপের কোনো সুযোগ নেই। .....Hamiduzzaman(Md.) =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, Faridpur, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 127] ....View Full Judgment

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.
Under the provisions of Sub-section 8 of Section 12 of the Artho Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, such sale can not be questioned. .....Mrs. Zinnatul Ara vs. Government of the People's (A.B.M. Khairul Haque J)(Civil) 7ADC 901

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.
The Appellate Division observed that in the instant case 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. Having considered and discussed as above, we are of the view that the High Court Division committed serious error in passing the impugned judgment and order by halting the proceeding of the suit and thus, same is required to be interfered. However, since we have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties at length, thus, we are inclined to dispose of the civil petition for leave to appeal without granting any leave to avoid further delay of disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the civil petition for leave to appeal is disposed of. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the High Court Division is hereby set aside. The Artha Rin Adalat is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the law. However, 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), 30 ALR (AD) 14.

Sulaiman Rubel =VS= Dr. Kazi Sirajul Islam 30 ALR (AD) 14
Section 12(3)

Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
Section 12(3)
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 104
The High Court Division discharged the Rule but referred the matter to Anti-Corruption Commission for taking appropriate steps against the bank officials and auction purchaser who were involved in fraud and collusion in holding auction and sale of the mortgaged property– Considering the facts and circumstances, our considered view is that without putting the parties in further litigations both in civil and criminal as indicated above, end of justice would best be served if we dispose of the matter finally. Accordingly, the following orders and directions are given:
1. The bank shall return the auction money to the auction purchaser writ-respondent No. 7, that is, an amount of Taka 5,35,00,000.
2. The bank shall accept Taka 4,75,00,000 as deposited by the writ petitioner-respondents against the amount claimed by the bank, that is, to the tune of Taka 4,74,33,727.79.
3. The sale deed No. 11302 dated 25-11-2015 executed by the bank in favour of the auction purchaser writ-respondent No. 7 is declared to be void.
4. The Title Suit No. 622 of 2017 pending in the First Court of Joint District Judge, Dhaka shall stand dismissed.
5. The bank shall return the title documents of the writ petitioners to them which they deposited in the bank.
6. The observations made by the High Court Division regarding fraud and collusion and the direction to the Anti-Corruption Commission to take steps against some officials of Jamuna Bank Ltd. and auction purchaser shall be set-aside. .....Denim Attires Ltd. =VS= Iffat Obaid, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 243]

ধারা ১২(৩)— হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ রুল খারিজ করে বিষয়টি দুর্নীতি দমন কমিশন এর নিকট ব্যাংক অফিসার, নিলাম ক্রেতাসহ নিলাম প্রক্রিয়া ও বন্ধকী সম্পত্তি বিক্রয়ের সহিত জড়িত প্রতারক ও যোগসাজশকারীর বিরুদ্ধে যথাযথ ব্যবস্থা গ্রহণের জন্য প্রেরণ করা হয়। মামলার ঘটনা ও পরিস্থিতি বিবেচনায় আমাদের অভিমত হলো, পক্ষদয়কে পুনরায় দেওয়ানি ও ফৌজদারি মামলায় না জড়িয়ে বিষয়টির চূড়ান্ত নিষ্পত্তির মাধ্যমে ন্যায় বিচার নিশ্চিত করা। সেকারনে নিম্নোক্ত আদেশ ও নির্দেশনা প্রদান করা হলো, যথা:-
১. ব্যাংক নিলাম বিক্রির ৫,৩৫,০০,০০০ টাকা রীটের ৭নং প্রতিবাদী নিলাম ক্রেতাকে ফেরত দিবে।
২. ব্যাংকের দাবীকৃত ৪,৭৪,৩৩,৭২৭.৭৯ টাকা পিটিশনার-রেসপনডেন্টের সঞ্চিত ৪,৭৫,০০,০০০ টাকা গ্রহণ করবে।
৩. নিলাম ক্রেতা-প্রতিবাদী নং-৭ এর অনুকূলে ২৫-১১-২০১৫ খ্রি. তারিখের ১১৩০২নং বিক্রয় দলিলটি অবৈধ।
৪. ১নং যুগ্মজেলা জজ ঢাকা এর আদালতে ২০১৭ সালের ৬২২নং মামলটি খারিজ করা হলো।
৫. ব্যাংকে গচ্ছিত মালিকের দলিল রীট পিটিশনকারীকে ফেরত দিতে হবে।
৬. প্রতারণা ও যোগসাজশকারী যমুনা ব্যাংক লি. এর কিছু অফিসারের বিরুদ্ধে দুর্নীতি দমন কমিশনকে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের দেওয়া আদেশ বাতিল করা হলো। .....Denim Attires Ltd. =VS= Iffat Obaid, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 243] ....View Full Judgment

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.
আপাততঃ বলবৎ অন্য কোন আইনে ভিন্নরূপ যাহা কিছুই থাকুক না কেন, এই ধারার অধীন আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠান কর্তৃক lien, pledge, hypothecation অথবা Mortgage এর অধীন প্রাপ্ত ক্ষমতাবলে কোন জামানতী স্থাবর বা অস্থাবর সম্পত্তি বিক্রয় করা হইলে, উক্ত বিক্রয় ক্রেতার অনুকূলে বৈধ স্বত্ব সৃষ্টি করিবে এবং ক্রেতার ক্রয়কে কোনভাবেই তর্কিত করা যাইবে নাঃ
তবে শর্ত থাকে যে, আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠান কর্তৃক বিক্রয় কার্যক্রমে কোনরূপ অবৈধতা বা পদ্ধতিগত অনিয়ম থাকিলে, জামানত প্রদানকারী ঋণ-গ্রহীতা আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠানের বিরুদ্ধে ক্ষতিপূরণ দাবী করিতে পরিবেন।
The Appellate Division held that the above law has given a protection to a purchaser in an 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. In view of the above, the High Court Division did not commit any error or illegality in passing the impugned judgment and order. Thus, the Appellate Division finds no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. .....Abdus Sattar Miah -Vs.- Bangladesh and others (Civil) 27 ALR (AD) 296

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.
The provision of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 particularly Section 12(2) and 12(6) read with Sections 57 and 60 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and the reasoning’s given by the Artha Rin Adalat as appearing in the impugned order, Appellate Division is 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. This Division does not find any merit in this leave petition. .....M/S. United Leather International =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 669]

ধারা ১২(২), ১২(৬), ৫১, ৫৭ ও ৬০— ১২(৬) ধারা অনুসারে অর্থঋণ আদালত নিজ উদ্যোগে অথবা ডিক্রি প্রদানের সময়ে ঋণগ্রহীতার আবেদনের প্রেক্ষিতে প্রদর্শিত যেকোনো পণ্যের মূল্য কমাতে পারে। অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ১২(২) ও ৫১ ধারার অধীন বন্ধকী পণ্যের বিক্রয় মূল্য দিয়ে ঋণ স্থিতি সমন্বয়ের আবেদনের ভিত্তিতে মামলার মূলদাবী মেটাতে হবে। অর্থঋণ আদালতের আদেশ নং-৪৪, তারিখ ২৫.১০.২০০৫ এর মাধ্যমে প্রত্যাখিত আবেদনের পর্যবেক্ষণে বলা হয়, সাক্ষীর পরীক্ষা চলমান এবং মামলা দায়েরের পূর্বে বন্ধকী পণ্যের বিক্রয়ের বিধান ১৯৯০ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালত আইনে ছিল না এবং উক্ত বিধান ২০০৩ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালত আইনে সংযুক্ত করা হয়েছে। এই মামলাটি ২০০৩ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন কার্যকর হওয়ার পূর্বে দায়ের করা হয়েছে এবং বন্ধকী সম্পত্তির বিক্রয় ছাড়া মামলার প্রক্রিয়ায় কোনো বাধা নেই। সেইসাথে পণ্যের বিক্রয় মূল্য দিয়ে দাবীকৃত অর্থের দাবী মেটানো যাবে। ২০০৩ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালতের বিধান, বিশেষ করে ধারা ১২(২) ও ১২(৬) কে ধারা ৫৭ ও ৬০ সঙ্গে পড়তে হবে। অর্থঋণ আদালতের আদেশে উল্লেখিত যুক্তি হতে আপীল বিভাগের অভিমত হলো, হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ সঠিকভাবে আইন ব্যাখ্যা করেছে এবং আইনানুসারে আদেশে হস্তক্ষেপের সুযোগ নেই বিধায় লিভ পিটিশন মঞ্জুরের কোনো উপযোগিতা পাওয়া যায়নি। .....M/S. United Leather International =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 669] ....View Full Judgment

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]

ধারা ১২ ও ১৩— সম্পত্তির নিলামে বিক্রয়-এটা প্রতীয়মান হয় যে, পূর্বের রীট পিটিশনে বিএসসিআইসিকে নির্দেশনা দেওয়া হয়েছিল, পিটিশনার ৭ দিনের মধ্যে সকল বকেয়া পরিশোধ করলে গ্রহণ করতে এবং ব্যর্থতায় বন্ধকী সম্পত্তি বিক্রয়ে অগ্রসর হবে। পিটিশনার ব্যর্থ হওয়ার কারণে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ রুল খারিজসহ নিলাম প্রক্রিয়ায় অগ্রসর হওয়ার নির্দেশ প্রদান করে কোনো আইনের ব্যত্যয় করেনি। যাইহোক নির্ধারিত সময়ের মধ্যে অর্থ পরিশোধ করলে নিলামে বিক্রয় প্রক্রিয়া রোধ করা সম্ভব ছিল।.....Nurul Abedin(Md.) =VS= Ministry of Industry, Bangladesh, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 680] ....View Full Judgment

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]

ধারা ১২(৩)— বন্ধকী সম্পত্তি বিক্রয়-এটা অনস্বীকার্য যে, মামলা দায়ের পূর্বে আইনের ১২(৩) ধারার বিধান অনুসারে সম্পত্তি বিক্রির ব্যবস্থা গ্রহণ করা হলেও বন্ধকদাতা কর্তৃক হাইকোর্ট বিভাগে রীট পিটিশন দায়েরের কারণে নিলাম সম্পূর্ণ হয়নি। ফলে মামলা দায়েরের পূর্বে বন্ধকী সম্পত্তি বিক্রির কোনো পদক্ষেপ গ্রহণ করা হয়নি বলা যাবে না। মামলা বিচারাধীন থাকা অবস্থায় অর্থঋণ আদালতের অনুমতিক্রমে ব্যাংক স্বাধীনভাবে নিলামের মাধ্যমে অথবা আলোচনার মাধ্যমে বন্ধককৃত সম্পত্তি বিক্রি করতে পারবে এবং আদালত আইন অনুসারে বিষয়টি নিষ্পত্তি করবে। .....Sulaiman Rubel =VS= Dr. Kazi Sirajul Islam, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 551] ....View Full Judgment

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.
Considering the contents of the writ petition and prayer of the writ petitioners the High Court Division allowed the writ petitioners to deposit tk. 4,75,00,000/- which was deposited accordingly. It has been stated that the bank auction sold the disputed property at a consideration of tk. 5,35,00,000/- and, accordingly, executed and registered the sale deed. The Appellate Division directed as fol-lows:
1. The bank officials, ignoring the provision of section 33(1), published auction notification in two unknown newspapers for realization of tk. 4,74,33,772.79/- for selling the disputed mortgaged property. 2. The auction purchaser writ respondent No. 7 auction purchased the disputed property at a consideration of tk. 5,35,00,000/- and got the sale deed registered.
3. The land owner-borrowers, as per direction of the High Court Division, deposited tk. 4,75,00,000/- against the claimed amount to satisfy the bank dues.
4. The High Court Division held that the auction was held fraudulently and collusively and directed the Anti-Corruption Commission to take appropriate step against the Jamuna bank officials and auction purchaser.
5. The land owner-borrowers instituted Title Suit No. 622 of 2017 in the First Court of Joint District Judge, Dhaka for getting the auction sale set aside. Denim Attires Ltd. -Vs.- Iffat Obaid and others (Civil) 2019 ALR (AD) Online 107-112 ....View Full Judgment

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.
Whether or not it was filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree is a matter to be decided with the help of evidence, adduced by the parties.
Knowledge of any party to the suit is a matter personal to that party. Knowledge can only be ascertained upon taking evidence.
The Appellate Division considered that the combined effect of sub-sections (2)(3) and (4) of section 19 of the Ain is that if a proper application is made by the defendant for setting aside an ex parte decree in accordance with law a right accrues to the defendant to have the ex parte decree set aside. In the present case the only point in issue is whether or not the defendant filed the application for setting aside the ex parte decree within the time stipulated by law. Admittedly miscellaneous case was not filed within 30 days from the date of the decree. Whether or not it was filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree is a matter to be decided with the help of evidence, adduced by the parties. With regard to knowledge of defendant No. 8-appellant herein, the High Court Division made certain observations which have been detailed above. It is Appellate Division considered view that the view taken by the High Court Division that the appellant had knowledge through her constituted attorney is absolutely misconceived since knowledge of any party to the suit is a matter personal to that party. Knowledge can only be ascertained upon taking evidence. There is no evidence on record to indicate that even the attorney was examined to ascertain whether or not this defendant had received notices of the suit. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, the appeal is allowed. …..Mrs. Dilruba Morshed -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Chittagong and others (Civil) 13 ALR (AD) 23-28

Section 19— বিবাদী আইনের নির্ধারিত সময়ের মধ্যে একতরফা ডিক্রি বাতিলের আবেদন করেছিল কি না? একতরফা ডিক্রির বিষয়ে জ্ঞাত হওয়ার ৩০ দিনের মধ্যে মামলা দায়ের করেছে কি না? এতদসংক্রান্ত বিষয় আদালতে পক্ষদ্বয় কর্তৃক উত্থাপিত দ্বারা প্রমাণিত হবে। মামলা সম্পর্কে কোনো পক্ষের জ্ঞান পক্ষদ্বয়ের ব্যক্তিগত বিষয়। জ্ঞাত হওয়ার বিষয়টি শুধুমাত্র সাক্ষ্য দ্বারা নির্ধারিত হয়। আইনের ১৯(২)(৩) ও (৪) বলা হয়েছে যদি বাদী যথাযথভাবে একতরফা ডিক্রি বাতিলের আবেদন করে তাহলে বিবাদীর অনুকূলে একতরফা ডিক্রি বাতিলের অধিকার জন্মায়। এই মামলায় শুধুমাত্র একটি পয়েন্ট বিবেচ্য ছিল যে, বিবাদী আইনের নির্ধারিত সময়ের মধ্যে একতরফা ডিক্রি বাতিলের আবেদন করেছিল কি না? এটা স্পষ্ট যে, ডিক্রির ৩০ দিনের মধ্যে মিস কেস দায়ের করা হয়নি। একতরফা ডিক্রির বিষয়ে জ্ঞাত হওয়ার ৩০ দিনের মধ্যে মামলা দায়ের করেছে কি না? সে বিষযে আদালতে পক্ষদ্বয় কর্তৃক উত্থাপিত সাক্ষ্য দ্বারা প্রমাণিত হবে। বিবাদী (৮নং আপীলকারী) এর জ্ঞাত হওয়া সম্পর্কে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের সুনির্দিষ্ট পর্যবেক্ষণে বিস্তারিত উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে। আমাদের বিবেচনার বিষয় হলো হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের মতে বিবাদী বিষয়টি সম্পর্কে জ্ঞাত ছিল। যদিও তার নিয়োজিত আইনজীবীর ধারণ ভুল ছিল। কারণ মামলা সম্পর্কে কোনো পক্ষের জ্ঞান পক্ষদ্বয়ের ব্যক্তিগত বিষয়। জ্ঞাত হওয়ার বিষয়টি শুধুমাত্র সাক্ষ্য দ্বারা নির্ধারিত হয়। বিবাদীর নোটিশ পাওয়া সংক্রান্ত বিষয় সম্পর্কে আইনজীবীকে পরীক্ষা করা হয়েছিল কি না? এতদসংক্রান্ত বিষয় নিশ্চিত হওয়ার জন্য কোনো রেকর্ডকৃত সাক্ষ্য নেই। ফলে মামলার ঘটনা ও পরিস্থিতি বিবেচনায় আপীল মঞ্জুর করা হয়। …..Mrs. Dilruba Morshed -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Chittagong and others (Civil) 13 ALR (AD) 23-28

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.
The Appellate Division held that a third party is neither a necessary nor a proper party in a suit for realisation of ‘ঋণ’ against debtors. Therefore, neither section 19 nor section 41 has provided any provision of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 to redress the grievances of a third party in respect of a mortgaged property. If someone takes loan from a bank by mortgaging another’s property by way of deceitful means or by resorting to forgery or collusion or by misrepresentation, the Adalat cannot adjudicate the issue. Sub-section (5) of section 6 has specifically provided the parties against whom a suit under the Ain can be filed. Other than those persons, there is no scope under the Ain to implead any person to add as defendant in the suit. …..Md. Sekandar and another -Vs.- Janata Bank Ltd. and others (Civil) 9 ALR (AD) 81-94

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.
The Appellate Division held that in case of ex-parte decree, the judgment debtor can file a petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree under sub-section (2) of section 19 within 30 days from passing of the decree subject to the condition that the judgment debtor shall have to deposit equivalent to 10% of the decreetal amount by cash, draft, pay order etc. within 15 days from the date of filing application. So 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 (Civil) 9 ALR (AD) 81-94

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.

Section 20— অর্থঋণ আদালতের ডিক্রি ও রায়ের বিরুদ্ধে ৩০ দিনের মধ্যে ডিক্রিতে উল্লেখিত অর্থের ৫০% জমা দিয়ে আপীল করার সুনির্দিষ্ট বিধান রয়েছে। এই বিধান পরিপালন করা না হলে ডিক্রি ও রায়ের বিরুদ্ধে রীট পিটিশন সমর্থনীয় নয়। .....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

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]

Sections 21 and 22, 38 and 45–– এই আইনে মামলা তিনটি পর্যায়ে নিষ্পত্তি করা যায়, যথা:- (১) ২১ ও ২২ ধারার অধীন মামলা দায়েরের পূর্বে, (২) ৩৮ ধারা অধীন ডিক্রি পাশের এবং ডিক্রি কার্যকর সংক্রান্ত মামলা বিচারাধীন অবস্থায় এবং (৩) ৪৫ ধারা অধীন মামলার যেকোনো পর্যায়ে এমনকি চূড়ান্ত পর্যায়ে ডিক্রির অর্থ পরিশোধের মাধ্যমে আপোষ মীমাংসা করা যাবে। …Lt. Col. M. A. Mannan (Retd.) =VS= Social Investment Bank Ltd., [8 LM (AD) 280] ....View Full Judgment

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.
Held: The intention of the legislature i.e. the Artha Rin Adalat Ain is explicit. It encourages amicable settlement of the disputes outside the Court. It is the cardinal rule for construction of Act of Parliament that they should be construed according to the intention expressed in the Acts themselves. In construing Acts of Parliament we are to look not only at the language of the preamble or of any particular clause, but the language of the whole Act. 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 authorizes 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. In this case the decree holder itself is eager to settle up the dispute amicably and accordingly it filed the application for staying further proceedings of the execution case before the auction sale was held, which prayer is normally made by the judgment-debtors. The order-sheet shows that the executing Court is very much interested in putting the property in auction sale despite the objection raised by the decree holder. The Courts are adjudicating a lis in accordance with law but in this case we find the executing Court has adjudicated the matter in such a manner, which can be taken as has been done in accordance with law. 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.

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.

Section 26— অপর্যাপ্ত অর্থ বা অন্যান্য কারণে মামলা দায়েরে আপত্তি- আইনের ২৬ ধারায় বলা হয়েছে, এই আইনের সঙ্গে অসঙ্গতিপূর্ণ না হলে নিলামের জন্য দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধি প্রয়োগ হবে। আইনের ৪র্থ অধ্যায়ে অপর্যাপ্ত অর্থ বা অন্যান্য কারণে মামলা দায়েরে আপত্তি সম্পর্কে কোনো বিধান না থাকায় দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধির আদেশ ২১ এর বিধি ৮৯, ৯০ ও ৯১ এর নিলাম বিক্রি বাতিলের বিধান মামলা বাস্তবায়ন প্রক্রিয়ায় প্রযোজ্য হবে। .....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.
Held: In writ jurisdiction judgment debtor obtained rule and auction purchaser by filing affidavit-in-opposition opposed the Rule while decree holder Bank supported the Rule High Court Division disposing of the Rule directing the executing court for passing necessary order for setting aside the auction sate and for holding fresh auction of the mortgaged properties provided that the judgment debtor pay the auction purchaser, interest at the rate of 12%, on the amount of money which the auction purchase, deposited in the court with effect from the date of deposit.
High Court Division on proper consideration of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision and there in no illegality or infirmity in the above decision so as to call for any interference. [Mr. Justice Md. Tafazzul Islam]. .....M/s International Trade Promotors vs The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka, 17BLT (AD) 306.

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
Held; Having read the relevant provisions, particularly, section 60(3) of the Ain of 2003, 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 & Ors Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Ors 24BLT (AD) 435

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]

Sections 28, 29 and 49(3)—তামাদি হওয়ার কারণে অর্থঋণ আদালতের বিজ্ঞ বিচারক সঠিকভাবে মামলা বাস্তবায়নের আবেদন খারিজ করেছে। ডিক্রিতে কিস্তি পরিশোধের নির্দিষ্ট সময় ও তারিখের উল্লেখ ছিল না। কিস্তি পরিশোধের সময় ও তারিখ না থাকায় ডিক্রির অর্থ দায়িক কিস্তিতে পরিশোধের অনুমতি পায় যা দায়িককে ডিক্রির অর্থ একসঙ্গে পরিশোধের পরিবর্তে আংশিক পরিশোধের সুবিধা দেয় এবং কিস্তি পরিশোধের নির্দিষ্ট তারিখ ও সময় না থাকায় দায়িক ডিক্রির অর্থ একবছরে চারটি কিস্তিতে পরিশোধের অনুমতি পায়। ফলে ডিক্রির অর্থ পরিশোধে সুবিধা হয়। এই অবস্থায় আপীল বিভাগের সিদ্ধান্ত হলো হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ কর্তৃক উল্লেখিত কারণে হস্তক্ষেপের সুযোগ নেই। .....M/S M.M. Steel Mills Limited =VS= First Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 579] ....View Full Judgment

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
Sections 28/37/27 and 57
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Order 21 Rule 58
Appears that Mr. Masudul Alam Chaklader, Managing Director was impleaded as judgment debtor No.2 and because of the death of the heirs the petitioner has been substituted. The petitioner's application under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also rejected and their further applications under Sections 28/37/27 and 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 Ain was also rejected and the petitioner moved the High Court Division by suppression of these facts. The impugned order was acted upon in the execution case before issuance of the Rule. Considering these circumstances of the High Court Division discharged the Rule and directed the execution case to be disposed of in accordance with law. .....Nasir Hossain Chaklader =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 641]

Sections 28/37/27 and 57— এটা প্রতীয়মান হয় যে, জনাব মাসুদুল আলম চাকলাদার, ব্যবস্থাপনা পরিচালক ২নং দায়িক হিসাবে সুপ্ত ছিল এবং তার মৃত্যুতে তার উত্তরসূরিগণ পিটিশনার হিসাবে স্থলাভিষিক্ত হয়েছে। দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধির আদেশ ২১ এর ৫৮ বিধির অধীন পিটিশনারের আবেদন খারিজ হয়। অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ২৮, ৩৭, ২৭ ও ৫৭ ধারার অধীন আবেদনটি পুনরায় খারিজ হলে পিটিশনার উপরোক্ত ঘটনার কারণে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগে প্রতিকার প্রার্থনা করে। রুল জারির পূর্বে বিতর্কিত আদেশটি ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়ন মামলায় প্রদত্ত হয়েছিল। এই পরিস্থিতি বিবেচনায় হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ রুলটি খারিজ করে আইনানুসারে ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নের মামলা নিষ্পত্তির নির্দেশ দেয়। .....Nasir Hossain Chaklader =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 641] ....View Full Judgment

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;
The High Court Division is of the view that, once certificate is issued in favour of the decree-holder in respect of the concerned property either under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of Section 33 of the said Ain, the execution case in question has to be regarded as disposed of under sub-section (9) of Section 33. After such disposal, the executing Adalat will become fungtus-officio in so far as the execution of the said decree is concerned except that the executing Adalat will only have power to handover possession of the property in question in favour of the decree-holder under sub-section (7 ka) of Section 33 and in doing so will conduct an inquiry as regards real ownership of the judgment debtor in respect of the said property under sub-section (7 Kha) of Section 33. In which case, though the process of handing over of possession of the property in question as well as inquiry as regards ownership of the property may go in accordance with law for long time, the decree-holder bank will be able to file the second or next execution case for execution of decree in so far as the remaining decreetal amount is concerned. Otherwise, the whole purpose of enabling the decree-holder to file second or subsequent execution case will be redundant and, under no circumstances, the decree-holder will be able to file second or next execution case once the issue of delivery of possession in favour of the decree-holder remains pending. It is for this reason that, the legislature has inserted sub-section (6ka) under Section 33 by virtue of Act No. 16 of 2010 to adjust the value of the property with the decreetal amount and to file second or next execution case, again subject to the provisions under Section 28 of the said Ain. Therefore, unless the execution case is regarded as disposed of under sub-section (9) of Section 33 after issuance of the certificate under sub-sections (5) or (7) of Section 33, in most cases, the decree-holder bank or financial institution will never be able to file second or next execution case subject to the provisions under Section 28 of the said Ain for execution of a decree in so far as the remaining decreetal amount is concerned. .....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 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”
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 Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. In the circumstance it appears that the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division is beyond jurisdiction, unlawful and thus liable to be interfered with. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Division is hereby set-aside. However, the parties are at liberty to resolve the dispute out of the court in accordance with law if so advised. .....Agrani Bank Limited =VS= Shushanto Kumar Das, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 267]

Sections 30, 49(3) and 50— আইনানুসারে মামলার পক্ষদ্বয় তাদের ইচ্ছানুসারে আদালতের বাইরে বিরোধ মীমাংসা করতে পারে। ডিক্রি বাস্তায়নের মামলার প্রেক্ষিতে দৈনিক সকালের খবরে ২৫.০৫.২০২৩ খ্রি. তারিখে প্রকাশিত নিলাম বিজ্ঞপ্তিকে পিটিশনার চ্যালেঞ্জ করেছিল। যেখানে ৩নং প্রতিবাদী ব্যাংক হলফনামায় স্পষ্টকরে উল্লেখ করেছে, বিতর্কিত বিজ্ঞপ্তিটি ছিল শুধুমাত্র কারণ দর্শানোর নোটিশ এবং আরো উল্লেখ হয়, পিটিশনার ২০১৩ সালের ২নং অর্থঋণ মামলা বিরোধীতা করেছিল। তবে এটা প্রতিষ্ঠিত যে, রীট পিটিশনটি অর্থঋণ বাস্তবায়নকারী আদালতের আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে প্রয়োগযোগ্য না। কারণ ৩নং প্রতিবাদী স্বীকার করেছে, বিজ্ঞপ্তিটি ছিল কারণ দর্শানোর নোটিশ এবং পিটিশনার ইতোমধ্যে আদালতের নির্দেশ অনুসারে ২০১৩ সালের ২৮শে নভেম্বর দুইকোটি টাকা পরিশোধ করেছে। বাকি মূল অর্থ আট মাসের মধ্যে পরিশোধ করবে এবং এই সময়ের মধ্যে পিটিশনার চার কোটি ৬৪ লক্ষ ৭০ হাজার টাকা পরিশোধ করায় হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ বাকি অর্থ ১২ মাসের মধ্যে ১২টি কিস্তিতে পরিশোধের নির্দেশ দেয় এবং ৩নং প্রতিবাদী ব্যাংকে পিটিশনারের বিরুদ্ধে আনীত আবেদনটি নিষ্পত্তিসহ সকল মুল দলিলাদি পিটিশনারের নিকট ফেরতের নির্দেশ দেয় যাতে করে সংশ্লিষ্ট আদালতের সন্তুষ্টিসহ দাবীর পরিপালন হয়। উপরোক্ত পর্যবেক্ষণসহ রুল নিষ্পত্তি করা হয়।
রীট পিটিশনে পিটিশনারকে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ সুদ ছাড়া শুধুমাত্র ঋণের আসল অর্থ প্রদানের নির্দেশনা দেওয়া হয়েছিল যা এখতিয়ার বর্হিভূত হওয়ায় অর্থঋণ আদালতের রায় ও ডিক্রিতে হস্তক্ষেপের কোনো সুযোগ ছিল না যা অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর সুস্পষ্ট লঙ্ঘন। এই পরিস্থিতিতে প্রতিয়মান হয় যে, হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের রায় ও আদেশ এখতিয়ার বহির্ভূত, অবৈধ এবং হস্তক্ষেপযোগ্য। ফলে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের বিতর্কিত রায় ও আদেশটি বাতিল করা হয়। যদি পরামর্শ দেওয়া হয় তাহলে আইনানুসারে মামলার পক্ষদ্বয় তাদের ইচ্ছানুসারে আদালতের বাইরে বিরোধ মীমাংসা করতে পারে। .....Agrani Bank Limited =VS= Shushanto Kumar Das, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 267] ....View Full Judgment

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)2015(1) 31

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

Section 31— পদ্ধতি ও নিলামে বন্ধকী সম্পত্তি বিক্রির ধরণ অবৈধ না হলে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ কর্তৃক ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নকারী আদালতের আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে স্থগিত আদেশ দেওয়ার সুযোগ নেই। …..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.
The Appellate Division observed that the appellant stated that the borrower created equitable mortgage on signing a charge document dated 14.07.1985 and that the memorandum of deposit of title deed was signed by the mortgagor on 14.07.1985. The suit land was alleged to have been sold by the borrower to the respondents on 10.12.1989. The respondents claimed that the disputed plot No. 3764 is not in the irrevocable general power of attorney dated 03.10.2004 executed and registered by the borrower authorizing the appellant to sell his properties and that disputed plot No. 3764 was conspicuously absent in that registered power of attorney. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record, the Appellate Division is of the view that 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, if so advised. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the plaint of Title Suit No. 10 of 2002 is rejected with the observation made in the body of the judgment that the respondents may have recourse to section 32 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 to seek redress of their grievances, if so advised. .....International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd. -Vs.- Md. Alauddin and others. (Civil) 15 ALR (AD)73-76

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.
It appears to the Appellate Division that the High Court Division expunged the above quoted evidence of the bank, at the instance of the petitioner of the Miscellaneous case under Section 32 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain and excluded the exhibit ‘Kha’ from the list of evidence in the said Miscellaneous case. It is the claim of the writ petitioner that the aforesaid portions of evidence and the exhibit ‘Kha’ have been adduced and produced beyond the pleadings of the bank, that is, in written objection filed against the contents of the application under Section 32 of the Ain. 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, the parties proceed with the trial of the case with their full understanding regarding the involvement of the issues and respective cases of their adversaries, it cannot be said that the decision of the Court is vitiated by consideration of the evidence of the parties beyond their pleading. At the time of adjudicating the application under Section 32 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, if the evidence of the bank is found to be adduced beyond the pleadings the Adalat will have the authority to deal with issue in accordance with the law and principles enunciated in that regard. There is every possibility of the bank to be prejudiced if in writ jurisdiction evidence is expunged. The Appellate Division is of view that the High Court Division has committed an error of law in expunging evidence of the bank before allowing the Adalat to adjudicate the issues to be decided in the Miscellaneous case. The petitioner of the application under Section 32 of the Artha Rin Adalat can make his argument before the Adalat as to admissibility of above quoted portion of evidence as well as exhibit ‘Kha’ at the time of adjudication of the issues of the case. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition is disposed of. The judgment and order of the High Court Division is hereby set aside. .....Agrani Bank Ltd -Vs.- Md. Abdus Sobhan and others (Civil) 22 ALR (AD) 122

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.
The Appellate Division observed that the appellant stated that the borrower created equitable mortgage on signing a charge document dated 14.07.1985 and that the memorandum of deposit of title deed was signed by the mortgagor on 14.07.1985. The suit land was alleged to have been sold by the borrower to the respondents on 10.12.1989. The respondents claimed that the disputed plot No. 3764 is not in the irrevocable general power of attorney dated 03.10.2004 executed and registered by the borrower authorizing the appellant to sell his properties and that disputed plot No. 3764 was conspicuously absent in that registered power of attorney. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record, the Appellate Division is of the view that 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, if so advised. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the plaint of Title Suit No. 10 of 2002 is rejected with the observation made in the body of the judgment that the respondents may have recourse to section 32 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 to seek redress of their grievances, if so advised. .....International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd. -Vs.- Md. Alauddin and others. (Civil) 15 ALR (AD)73-76

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.
Section 32(2)—A mere reading of sub-section (2) of section 32 shows that it is the precondition to deposit security equivalent to 25% of the decretal amount in order to lay claim to an immovable property involved in an execution case, but admittedly in this case. .....Gias Uddin Chowdhury (Md) 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]

Section 32— হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের সিদ্ধান্ত হলো, যদি প্রমাণ করা যায় যে, ডিক্রিটি প্রতারণামূলকভাবে প্রাপ্ত হয়েছে। তাহলে সংক্ষুব্ধ পক্ষ অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ৩২ ধারার অধীন ১০% অর্থ জমাপূর্বক আপীল করতে পারবে এবং এক্ষেত্রে নতুন মামলা গ্রহণযোগ্য না। .....Sekandar (Md.) =VS= Janata Bank Ltd., [3 LM (AD) 448] ....View Full Judgment

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]

Section 32(1)— তৃতীয় পক্ষের অধিকার প্রতিষ্ঠায় মামলা দায়ের- হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ বিক্রয়কৃত সম্পত্তিতে তৃতীয়পক্ষের অধিকার প্রতিষ্ঠায় দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধির আদেশ ২১, বিধি ১০৩ এর প্রয়োগযোগ্যতা উপেক্ষা করেছে। যদি তৃতীয়পক্ষ সম্পত্তি বিক্রয় প্রক্রিয়া বাতিলের জন্য আবেদন করে, তাহলে আইনের ৩২(১) ধারা দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধির প্রয়োগকে বাধা দেয় না। দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধি অনুসারে বিক্রয়ের বিরুদ্ধে আপত্তি দায়ের করতে পারলেও তদন্তের সুযোগ কম এবং আদেশ ২১ বিধি ১০৩ এর অধীন বিক্রয়ের কারণে তৃতীয়পক্ষের অধিকার লঙ্ঘিত হলে আমরা অধিকার ও মালিকানা প্রতিষ্ঠায় তৃতীয় পক্ষকে বাধা দেওয়ার কোনো শক্ত কারণ পাইনি। ফলে আইনে মামলা দায়ের মাধ্যমে তৃতীয় পক্ষের বন্ধকী সম্পত্তিতে অধিকার, মালিকানা ও স্বার্থ প্রতিষ্ঠায় ব্যক্ত বা অব্যক্ত কোনো বাধা না থাকায় তৃতীয়পক্ষের মামলাটি প্রয়োগযোগ্য। .....Sekandar (Md.) =VS= Janata Bank Ltd., (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 448] ....View Full Judgment

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.
As the Appellate Division took up the leave petition, Mr. S.N.Goswami, the learned Advocate for the leave petitioners argued that as section 33(4) 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. He went on to submit 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. Mr. Hefzul Bari, the learned Advocate for the respondent bank, on the other hand submitted that when the Ain of 2003, repealing that of 1990 was brought into force, the legislators remained conscious to ensure that by the change over no pending proceeding is frustrated, and hence inserted section 60. Having read the relevant provisions, particularly, section 60(3) of the Ain of 2003, the Appellate Division is 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. Hence, the High Court Division committed no error. Accordingly, this civil petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. .....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
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.
The Appellate Division has considered the submissions of the learned Senior Advocates of both the sides, perused the impugned judgment and the materials on record. In the impugned judgment, the Appellate Division held that the judgment-debtors having failed to get back the properties on payment of decretal dues after compromise decree and after issuance of certificate under section 33(5) of the Ain, 2003, they lost the right to enjoy/possess the mortgaged property by their own action. The Appellate Division also noted that the High Court Division concluded that the provisions of section 33(6-Kha) of the Amendment Ain could not be said to be ultra vires the provision of Article 42 on the facts of the present case. The Appellate Division also noted that the High Court Division found that the judgment-debtors’ right to possess/enjoy the mortgaged property and the right to sell such property ceased after issuance of the certificate under section 33(5) of the Ain of 2003. Admittedly, there was no illegality in issuing certificate under section 33(7) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 in favour of the Bank. The learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf the petitioners could not make out a case of review of the impugned judgment. Therefore, both the review-petitions are dismissed. .....K. Ashfaq Ahmed and others -Vs.- Bangladesh Krishi Bank and others (Civil) 23 ALR (AD) 01

K. Ashfaq Ahmed and others -Vs.- Bangladesh Krishi Bank and others 23 ALR (AD) 01
Section 33(5)

Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
Section 33(5)
The Code of Civil Procedure
Order XXI Rule 58
It seems to us, having regard to the relevant provisions, that 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. It is open to the Court under sub-rule(2), Rule 58 to postpone the sale pending investigation of the claim. 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, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 26] ....View Full Judgment

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.
The Appellate Division held that when a party against whom a judgment is offered in evidence may prove that the judgment or order has been obtained or the sale has been conducted by practising fraud, the court will not hesitate to cancel the sale or declare nullity of the judgment. 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. Fraud includes all acts, commissions and concealments which involve a breach of equitable duty, trust and are injurious to another or by which an undue and unconscious advantage is taken by another. If in the face of the order fraud is detected the court will not hesitate to exercise its power to nullify the action. It is a nullity in the eye of law. More so, a decision cannot constitute a bar on the principle of resjudicata when new circumstances have come to ex-ist which require a reappraisal of the true legal position of law. …..Jahangir Kabir Chowdhury -Vs.- Bangladesh Government, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others (Civil) 8 ALR (AD) 283-289

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.
The Appellate Division observed that no auction as contemplated in sub-section (7) was ever held including the one in question. 12-1-2006 was fixed for holding the auction of the property in question but that being a holiday auction could not be held on that day. Fixation of a date for holding auction on a holiday can in no way be regarded or accepted as an auction within the meaning of sections (1), (2), (2ka), (2kha), (2ga) and (3) and thus to comply with the mandate of sub-section (7) of the section 33. Further though the executing Court fixed 9-3-2006 for taking step in the matter, the decree-holder without taking any step in that regard, filed application to issue certificate in its favour in respect of the property in question under sub-section (7) of section 33 and accordingly the same was issued. It also appears to the Appellate Division that one auction as contemplated in sub-sections (1), (2), (2ka), (2kha), (2ga) and (3) must be an actual auction and not a show of auction as has been done in the instant case. So, the Adalat was totally wrong in issuing certificate under sub-section (7) of section 33 of the Ain, 2003 and then to issue writ of delivery of possession of the property in question in favour of the decree holder and, as such, order Nos. 8 and 23 passed by the Adalat were passed illegally and those cannot be sustained and therefore, must be set aside and at the same time direction need be given to the decree-holder to take positive step to hold one auction in the real sense within the meaning of sub-sections (1), (2), 2(ka), 2(kha) 2(ga) and 3 of the Ain, 2003. The High Court Division totally failed to consider the true purport and scope of sub-sections (1), (2), (2ka), (2kha), 2(ga) and (3) in summarily rejecting the application under article 102 of the Constitution. .....Ellal Textile Mills Limited -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 3rd Court, Dhaka and others (Civil) 15 ALR (AD)30-33

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:
Held: Section 33 provides the procedure for selling any property by the Artha Rin Adalat for realization of the decreetal amount. Sub-section (1) of section 33 provides for publication of notice by giving 15 days time inviting tender for auction sale at least in one national daily news paper. Sub-sections (2) and (3) provide the procedure for filing tender by the intending purchasers. Subsection (4) of section 33 provides that if it is not practicable to sell the property on auction under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), the Adalat shall direct publication of notice at least in two Bengali daily news papers, and if it is practicable in a local news paper, as per provisions of Sub-section (1) of section 33. These provisions clearly show that at the initial stage the publication of notice for sale of the mortgaged property or any other property be made in a national daily news paper and on such publication if the sale cannot be effected, then the Adalat will direct for publication of notice for sale at least two daily national news papers by giving 15 days time, which is the minimum requirement of law. 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

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

Section 33— ক্রটির জন্য খারিজের আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে -আপীল বিভাগের নিকট নথি পর্যালোচনায় মনে হয়েছে যে, দুইটি রুলই হাইকোর্ট বিভাগে ক্রটি জনিত কারণে খারিজ হয়েছিল এবং দ্বিতীয়বার পুনরুদ্ধার করা হলে উভয় রুল পিটিশনারের পক্ষের বিজ্ঞ আইনজীবীর নামে তালিকায় দৃশ্যমান ছিল। কিন্তু সে শুনানির জন্য ডাকা হলেও সে অংশগ্রহণ করেনি। ফলে উভয় রুলই ক্রটি জনিত কারণে খারিজ হয়েছিল। উপরোক্ত ঘটনা ও পরিস্থিতি বিবেচনায় আপীল বিভাগ হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের খারিজের আদেশে কোন আইনী ক্রটি না থাকায় পিটিশনারের আবেদন খারিজ করে দেয়। .....Md. Nuruzzaman =VS= Artha Rin Adalat & others, [1 LM (AD) 416] ....View Full Judgment

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

Section 33(7)— দায়িক ডিক্রির অর্থ পরিশোধের মাধ্যমে ডিক্রি ধারক ব্যাংকের সঙ্গে বিরোধ মীমাংসা করতে পারবে। হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ ও ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নকারী আদালতের ৩১-০৫-২০০৬ ও ২৬-০২-২০০৮ খ্রি. তারিখের বিতর্কিত আদেশ বাতিল করা হয়। ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নকারী আদালতকে আইনানুসারে সম্পত্তির নতুন নিলাম আয়োজনের ও এতদসংক্রান্ত বিষয়ে ডিক্রি ধারককে ইতিবাচক পদক্ষেপ গ্রহণের নির্দেশ দেওয়া হয়। এ বিষয়ে দায়িক আদালতের কোনো প্রকার আদেশ বা নির্দেশ ছাড়াই ডিক্রি ধারক ব্যাংকের নিকট ডিক্রির অর্থ পরিশোধের মাধ্যমে বিরোধ মীমাংসা করতে পারবে। .....Ellal Textile Mills Limited =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, [4 LM (AD) 110] ....View Full Judgment

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]

Sections 33 and 34— দেওয়ানি আটকাদেশ ডিক্রির অর্থ পরিশোধ করা হতে অব্যাহতি দেয় না-আপীল বিভাগ পুঙ্খানুপুঙ্খভাবে লিভ পিটিশন পরীক্ষা করেছে ও বিজ্ঞ আইনজীবীর বক্তব্য শুনেছে। আপীল বিভাগ অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ৩৩ ও ৩৪ ধারাও পুঙ্খানুপুঙ্খভাবে পরীক্ষা করেছে। ফলে আপীল বিভাগের নিকট এটা সুস্পষ্টভাবে প্রতীয়মান হয় যে, ৩৪ ধারায় ৬ মাসের দেওয়ানি আটকাদেশ মূলত দায়িককে ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নের উদ্দেশ্যে দেওয়া হয়। অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ৩৪ ধারা ৩৩ ধারার উপর নির্ভরশীল না। এই মামলায় ডিক্রিধারক নিলামে সম্পত্তি বিক্রির পদক্ষেপ গ্রহণ করলেও কোনো সাড়া না পাওয়ায় নিলাম বিক্রি অনুষ্ঠিত হয়নি। অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ হতে আরো প্রতীয়মান হয় যে, আইনে দেওয়ানি আটকাদেশ মূলত ডিক্রির অর্থ পরিশোধে বাধ্য করার জন্য এবং ডিক্রির অর্থ পরিশোধে পরিবর্তে বিকল্প শাস্তি না। দেওয়ানি আটকাদেশ ডিক্রির অর্থ পরিশোধ হতে অব্যাহতি দেয় না। .....Provat Kumar Das =VS= Agrani Bank, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 491] ....View Full Judgment

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
Order XXI Rule 100, 102
Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
Section 33(5)
After mortgaging the property in question to the bank, subsequent transfer of the same to others without the consent of mortgagee bank by the mortgagor without the view of repaying the loan is nothing, but a fraudulent act and it is by now well settled that fraud vitiates everything–– The Adalat categorically hold that property in question was mortgaged by Rina Humayun in favour of the bank in the year 1982. In view of the above, the subsequent transfer by Rina Humayun to Mohammad Mohsin, Mohammad Mohsin to Samantha Khandoker and Samantha Khandaker to the appellant of Civil Appeal No.471 of 2017 cannot be treated as valid and legal transfer and such transfer did not create any right, title and interest in favour of the appellant of Civil Appeal No.471 of 2017. After mortgaging the property in question to the bank, subsequent transfer of the same to others without the consent of mortgagee bank by the mortgagor without the view of repaying the loan is nothing, but a fraudulent act and it is by now well settled that fraud vitiates everything.–– Appellate Division has already noticed that before adducing the evidence of respective parties, the plaint including the schedule of the plaint was amended and that was accepted by the defendants. As such, the property in question which was duly mortgaged and attached by the Adalat concerned. In the execution process the said property was transferred to the decree holder bank as per provision of section 33(5) of the Artha Rin Adalat, which was subsequently purchased by the appellant (Civil Appeal No.470 of 2017) through auction. This Division finds merit in Civil Appeal No.470 of 2017 and do not find any merit in Civil Appeal No.471 of 2017. .....Syed Jobayer Hossain =VS= Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 470] ....View Full Judgment

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]

Sections 33(5), 57— দায়িকের বন্ধকী সম্পত্তি মুক্ত করার কোনো অধিকার নেই বিধায় ডিক্রি ধারক ইতোমধ্যে ৮নং প্রতিবাদীর অনুকূলে মামলার সম্পত্তি রেজিস্ট্রি দলিলমূলে বিক্রয় করায় মূল্যের বিনিময়ে সদবিশ্বাসে ক্রয়ে হস্তক্ষেপের কোনো সুযোগ নেই। নিষ্ক্রিয় সমাপ্তির (foreclosure) ডিক্রি চূড়ান্তভাবে বাদীর অনুকূলে হওয়ার ফলে দায়িকের বন্ধকী সম্পত্তি খালাসের কোনো অধিকার থাকে না। আবার অর্থঋণ আদালতের ৩৩(৫) ধারার অধীন একই অর্থঋণ আদালত পুনরায় অর্থঋণ আদালত আইনের ৫৭ ধারার অধীন কোনো আবেদন গ্রহণ করতে পারে না। তবে অন্যকোনো বিধান পরিপূর্ণ না হলেই কেবল আইনের ৫৭ ধারায় অধীন ক্ষমতা কার্যকর হয়। দায়িকের বন্ধকী সম্পত্তি মুক্ত করার কোনো অধিকার নেই বিধায় ডিক্রি ধারক ইতোমধ্যে ৮নং প্রতিবাদী মোঃ রফিকের অনুকূলে মামলার সম্পত্তি রেজিস্ট্রি দলিলমূলে বিক্রয় এবং মূল্যের বিনিময়ে সদবিশ্বাসে ক্রয়ে হস্তক্ষেপের কোনো সুযোগ নেই। …Sonali Bank, Dhaka =VS= Hazera Islam(Mrs.), [8 LM (AD) 140] ....View Full Judgment

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

Section 33— পুনরুজ্জীবিত করার পর পুনরায় অনুপস্থিতির জন্য রুল খারিজ হয়।
আপীল বিভাগ এই মর্মে সিদ্ধান্ত দেন যে, রেকর্ড দৃষ্টে প্রতীয়মান হয়েছে যে, পূর্বে একবার হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ রুল দুটোই আবেদনকারীর আইনজীবী না থাকায় খারিজ করে দিলে পরবর্তীতে আবেদনের প্রেক্ষিতে রুলদুটো পুনরুজ্জীবিত করা হলে আবারও অনুপস্থিতির জন্য সে দুটি খারিজ করা হয়। এমতাবস্থায়, দেখা যায় যে, হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ কোন বেআইনী আদেশ দেন নি। অতএব, পিটিশন দুটোই খারিজ করা হলো। …..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.
Secondly, the balance amount of the sale proceed shall be paid to Sonali Bank from the date of its attachment of the said property on 15.10.1990 together with interest @ 10% from 15.10.1990, of course Sonali Bank shall adjust its received amount with its auction purchaser, the respondent No.3a, of this appeal namely Md. Aminul Hoque and thereafter the remaining balance amount of the sale proceed shall be paid to Agrani Bank in respect of its decreetal amount together with 10% interest from the date of its attachment on 12.01.2001 and thereafter surplus amount, if any, shall go to the heirs of lat Abidur Rahman since he is no more in this world as he died on 12.10.2012.
In the process of distribution it may be pointed out further that the first payment shall be made to Al-Baraka Bank second payment to be made to Sonali Bank which shall redeem its auction purchaser and lastly to Agrani Bank.
It may not be out of place to mentioned that in view of the resolute directions given above Appellate Division refrains from evaluating the applicability of the decisions cited by the learned Advocates with a view to avoid a mere academic discourse.
Conflicting claims and counter claims of the parties and that since the disputed property is situated in Gulshan area and the present market price of the same is much more than those of the claimed amounts of the claimant parties, Appellate Division does not find any wrong in the observation and directions of the High Court Division to resolve the respective claim of the parties effectively. The petitions are disposed of. ...Sonali Bank Limited =VS= Agrani Bank Limited, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 569]

Section 33(5)—পরস্পরবিরোধী দাবী ও বিপরীত দাবী - ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নকারী ১নং অতিরিক্ত জেলা জজ, ঢাকাকে আইনের সকল আনুষ্ঠানিকতা পরিপালনপূর্বক সম্পত্তি নিলামে রাখতে এবং একমাত্র ঋণদাতা হিসাবে সম্পত্তি বিক্রি হতে প্রাপ্ত অর্থ ১০% সুদসহ আল বারাকাহ ব্যাংকে প্রদানের নির্দেশ দেওয়া হয়। দ্বিতীয়ত ১৫.১০.১৯৯০ খ্রি. তারিখে সম্পত্তি ক্রোকের পর হতে ১০% সুদসহ নিলাম বিক্রির বাকি অর্থ সোনালী ব্যাংকে প্রদান করতে হবে এবং সোনালী ব্যাংক অবশ্যই প্রাপ্ত অর্থ নিলাম ক্রেতার সঙ্গে সমন্বয় করবে। অতঃপর ৩নং আপীলকারী মোঃ আমিনুল হক ডিক্রির অর্থের জন্য নিলাম বিক্রির অবশিষ্ট অর্থ ১২.০১.২০০১ তারিখে ক্রোক হতে ১০% সুদসহ অগ্রণী ব্যাংকে প্রদান করবে এবং যদি অর্থ অবশিষ্ট থাকে তাহলে মৃত আবিধুর রহমানের উত্তরাধিকারদের নিকট ফেরত যাবে। কারণ তিনি ১২.১০.২০১২ খ্রি. তারিখে মারা যান। এটা উল্লেখ্য যে, অর্থ বিতরণ প্রক্রিয়ায় প্রথমে আল বারাকাহ ব্যাংকে, দ্বিতীয়ত সোনালী ব্যাংককে যা নিলাম ক্রেতাকে সম্পত্তি ক্রয় হতে মুক্ত করবে এবং তৃতীয়ত অগ্রণী ব্যাংকে। উপরোক্ত দৃঢ়তাপূর্ণ নির্দেশনার কারণে আপীল বিভাগ একাডেমিক বিতর্ক এড়াতে বিজ্ঞ আইনজীবী কর্তৃক উল্লিখিত সিদ্ধান্তের প্রায়োগিক মূল্যায়ন করা হতে বিরত ছিল। পক্ষদ্বয়ের পরষ্পরবিরোধী দাবী ও বিপরীত দাবী এবং যেহেতু বিতর্কিত সম্পত্তিটি গুলশান এলাকায় অবস্থিত এবং পক্ষদ্বয়ের দাবীর চেয়ে সম্পত্তির বর্তমান বাজারমূল্য বেশি থাকায় আপীল বিভাগ কার্যকরভাবে বিরোধ নিষ্পত্তিতে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের নির্দেশনায় কোনো ক্রটি ছিল না বিধায় পিটিশনটি নিষ্পত্তি করা হলো।...Sonali Bank Limited =VS= Agrani Bank Limited, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 569] ....View Full Judgment

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

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

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]

Section 34 (2) & (11)— অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ৩৪ ধারা অনুসারে ডিক্রির অর্থ আদায়ের জন্য নারী দায়িককে গ্রেফতার হতে অব্যাহতি প্রদান করেছে। আইনের ৩৪(২) ও (১১) ধারায় অন্যান্য ব্যক্তিদের গ্রেফতার হতে অব্যাহতি প্রদান করেছে এবং গ্রেফতারের অব্যাহতি প্রাপ্ত ব্যক্তির তালিকায় না থাকা অর্থ গ্রেফতার হতে অব্যাহতি প্রাপ্ত নয়। .....Mst. Sufia Khatun =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, Khulna & others, [1 LM (AD) 226] ....View Full Judgment

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.
The Appellate Division observed that the High Court Division went on to elaborate that section 32 sub-sections (2) and (11) have exempted certain other persons from being arrested and non-inclusion of a woman judgement-debtor in the list of exempted persons indicates that this category is not exempted from being arrested. The Appellate Division notes from the impugned judgement that the High Court Division gave the petitioner a further opportunity for making payment of the outstanding decretal amount by remaining outside of the jail custody for a further period of three months. The impugned judgement was delivered on 27.10.2009 and there was no order of stay from this Division. Even to this day the petitioner has not taken any steps to make payment of the decretal amount. Clearly, the petitioner is flouting the Court orders and has no intention other than to defeat the course of justice. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, the Appellate Division does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgement and order and, accordingly, the civil petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. .....Mst. Sufia Khatun -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, Khulna and others (Civil) 19 ALR (AD) 96-97

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

Sections 40 and 44Ka— বন্ধকী পণ্যের ঋণের ক্ষেত্রে প্রথমত ঋণ দাতা ব্যাংক ও ঋণগ্রহীতা মধ্যে সম্মতির ভিত্তিতে মার্জিন হিসাবে গ্রহীতাকে নির্দিষ্ট পরিমাণ অর্থ সরবরাহ করতে হয় যা এই মামলায় ছিল ৩০%। দ্বিতীয়ত বন্ধকী পণ্যের ঋণের ক্ষেত্রে পণ্যটি ঋণদাতা ব্যাংকের নিয়ন্ত্রণাধীন থাকে। আদালত সঠিক সিদ্ধান্ত প্রদান করেছে কারণ বন্ধকী পণ্য আত্মসাৎ করা হলে ঋণগ্রহীতাকে ঋণের অর্থ পরিশোধে বাধ্য করা যায় না। .....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 —
Artha Rin Adalat Ain being a special statute shall prevail over all other laws including the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Appeal against order of rejection of application for setting aside auction sale on ground of low valuation without deposit of 50% decretal amount is held by the Appellate Division as no appeal in the eye of law. Korea-Bangladesh Food Products Ltd. Vs. National Bank Limited and others 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 253.

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

Section 41— তৃতীয়পক্ষ রায় ও আদেশ বাতিলের আবেদন করতে পারে না। আপীল বিভাগ মনে করে, আইনের ৪১ ধারা অধীন মামলার যেকোনো পক্ষ ৫০ লক্ষ টাকার বেশি অর্থের ডিক্রির বিরুদ্ধে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগে ৬০ দিনের মধ্যে এবং ৫০ লক্ষ টাকার কম অর্থের ডিক্রির বিরুদ্ধে ৩০ দিনের মধ্যে জেলা জজ আদালতে আপীল করতে পারবে। কিন্তু দায়িককে ডিক্রির ৫০% অর্থ উক্ত অর্থের সমপরিমাণ জামানত হিসাবে আদালতে জমা না দিলে আদালত আপীল আবেদন গ্রহণ করবে না। আপীলের বিধান তৃতীয় পক্ষের জন্য প্রয়োগযোগ্য না। এই বিধানের অধীন তৃতীয়পক্ষ রায় বা আদেশ বাতিলের আবেদন করতে পারে না। তৃতীয় পক্ষের একতরফা ডিক্রি বাতিলের ক্ষমতা থাকলেও বন্ধকী সম্পত্তির মালিকানার অজুহাত উত্থাপনের অধিকারী না। কারণ আইন বিচারিক আদালতকে মামলার ধরন অনুসারে বিচারের ক্ষমতা ও এখতিয়ার প্রদান করেছে যা বাৎসরিক অর্থ ও লভ্যাংশের পরিমাণকে সীমিত করেছে। আদালত বন্ধকী সম্পত্তির মালিকানার বিষয়ে সিদ্ধান্ত প্রদান করতে পারে না। …..Md. Sekandar and another -Vs.- Janata Bank Ltd. and others (Civil) 9 ALR (AD) 81-94

Md. Sekandar and another -Vs.- Janata Bank Ltd. and others 9 ALR (AD) 81
Section 41

Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
Section 41
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102
The petitioner did not come to the High Court Division with clean hands have rightly found the writ petition as not maintainable– 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. former Al-Baraka Bank BD Ltd. =VS= A B Siddiq, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 614]

Section 41— আপীল বিভাগের মতে পিটিশনার উপযুক্ত ছিল না বিধায় হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ রীট পিটিশনটি মঞ্জুর না করে আইনের ব্যত্যয় করেনি। এটা প্রতীয়মান হয়েছে যে, অর্থঋণ আদালতের রায় অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর অধীন আপীলযোগ্য। কিন্তু যথাসময়ে আপীল দায়ের না করে পিটিশনার মঞ্জুরিপত্রের তারিখ পরিবর্তন করে আপীল দায়েরের ব্যর্থতাকে আড়াল করার চেষ্টা করেছে। রীট এখতিয়ারের প্রতিকার সবার জন্য সমানভাবে প্রযোজ্য এবং কেউ প্রতিকার প্রার্থী হলে তাকে অবশ্যই উপযুক্ত হতে হয় এবং হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের দুইজন বিচারকের সিদ্ধান্ত হলো পিটিশনার উপযুক্ত ছিল না বিধায় রীট পিটিশন না মঞ্জুর করে আইনের ব্যত্যয় হয়নি। .....Oriental Bank Ltd. former Al-Baraka Bank BD Ltd. =VS= A B Siddiq, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 614] ....View Full Judgment

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.
Though in section 7 there was clear prohibition for acceptance of any appeal, in case of failure to make deposit as required under subsections (2) and (3) of section 41 of the Ain 2003 it has not improved the situation in favour of a party intending to prefer an appeal, putting the obligation to enclose proof of deposit of 50% of the decretal amount with the memorandum of appeal under sub-section (2) in as much as filing of memorandum of appeal itself has been made dependent on (উপ-ধারা (২)- এর বিধান সাপেক্ষে), and subject to fulfilment of the sub-section (2). [Mr. Justice Amirul Kabir Chowdhury] Peninsular .....Shipping Service Ltd vs Faruque Paint and Varnish Manufacturing Co. Ltd., 59 DLR (AD) 26=12 MLR (AD) 1.

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
Held; 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 Corp. & Ors Vs. Janata Bank & Ors 25BLT (AD)118

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.
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 (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 (Civil) 1 ALR (AD) 65

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

Section 42—রীট পিটিশনটি বলবতযোগ্য না হওয়াই বিজ্ঞ জেলা জজ কর্তৃক পিটিশনারের আবেদন মঞ্জুর করা উচিত হয়নি। বর্তমান মামলার ঘটনা ও পরিস্থিতি অনুসারে আইনের ৪২ ধারায় বর্ণিত রিভিশন আদালত ফলপ্রদ ছিল এবং পিটিশনার যথাযথভাবে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগে রিভিশন দায়ের করেছিল। কিন্তু একক বেঞ্চের বিজ্ঞ বিচারকের ভুল পর্যবেক্ষণে রুল খারিজ হয়েছিল। আমাদের আরও পর্যবেক্ষণ হলো রীট আবেদন গ্রহণ করার পূর্বে বিজ্ঞ বিচারকের উচিৎ ছিল রীটের আইনগত উপযোগিতা পরীক্ষা করা এবং রীট আইনে গ্রহণযোগ্য না হলে পিটিশনারের সম্পত্তির দাবীর গ্রহণ করা উচিৎ না। …..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.
The documentary evidence adduced by the parties shows that defendant No. 2 never mortgaged the suit property against the loan obtained by defendant No. 1. All the documents relating to suit property including the original title deeds have been lying with defendant No. 2. If he had mortgaged the suit property the original title deeds would have been in the custody of the plaintiff- petitioner. The trial Court came to a specific finding that defendant Nos. 1 and 3 in collusion each other by practicing fraud upon the plaintiff-bank had shown a mortgage of the suit property to the plaintiff- petitioner and obtained a loan. appellate Court did not give any finding how defendant No. 2 was responsible for the loan obtained by defendant No. 1 from the plaintiff-petitioner. The appellate Court abruptly gave a direction upon the plaintiff- petitioner to realize the decretal amount from defendant No.2 if defendant No. 3 failed to repay the loan. Such findings of the Court of appeal are against the evidence on record. The High Court Division rightly made an observation that defendant No. 2 could approach the concerned Court to return the money deposited by him (defendant No. 2 of the suit). …..Investment and Commerce BankLtd. (IFIC Bank Ltd).-Vs.-Abdur Rahman and others (Civil) 1 ALR (AD) 65

Sections 42 and 43— ১নং বিবাদী কর্তৃক প্রাপ্ত ঋণের জন্য ২নং বিবাদী মামলাধীন সম্পত্তিটি কখনই বন্ধক দেয়নি। মূল মালিকানার দলিলসহ মামলাধীন সম্পত্তির সকল দলিল ২নং বিবাদীর নিকট সংরক্ষিত আছে এবং যদি মামলাধীন সম্পত্তিটি বন্ধক প্রদান করা হতো তাহলে সম্পত্তির মূল মালিকানার দলিল বাদী-পিটিশনারের হেফাজতে থাকত। বিচারিক আদালত মনে করে, ১ ও ৩নং বিবাদীর পারষ্পারিক মৌন সম্মতিতে বাদী-ব্যাংক এর সাথে প্রতারণার মাধমে বাদী-পিটিশনারের নিকট মামলাধীন সম্পত্তিটি বন্ধক দেখিয়ে ঋণ গ্রহণ করেছিল। কিন্তু আপীল আদালত ১নং বিবাদীর প্রাপ্ত ঋণের জন্য কিভাবে ২নং বিবাদী দায়ী ছিল সে সম্পর্কে কোনো কারণ উল্লেখ করেনি এবং আপীল আদালত হঠাৎ করে বাদী-পিটিশনারকে ৩নং বিবাদীর ঋণ পরিশোধের ব্যর্থতায় ডিক্রির অর্থ ২নং বিবাদীর নিকট হতে আদায়ের নির্দেশ দেয়। আপীল আদালতের এই ধরণের নির্দেশনা নথিবদ্ধ প্রমাণের বিরুদ্ধে।
মামলার পক্ষদ্বয় কর্তৃক আদালতে উত্থাপিত দালিলিক প্রমাণ হতে প্রতীয়মান হয় যে, ১নং বিবাদী কর্তৃক প্রাপ্ত ঋণের জন্য ২নং বিবাদী মামলাধীন সম্পত্তিটি কখনই বন্ধক দেয়নি। মূল মালিকানার দলিলসহ মামলাধীন সম্পত্তির সকল দলিল ২নং বিবাদীর নিকট সংরক্ষিত আছে। যদি মামলাধীন সম্পত্তিটি বন্ধক প্রদান করা হতো তাহলে সম্পত্তির মূল মালিকানার দলিল বাদী-পিটিশনারের হেফাজতে থাকত। বিচারিক আদালত মনে করে, ১ ও ৩নং বিবাদীর পারষ্পারিক যোগসাজশে বাদী-ব্যাংক এর সাথে প্রতারণার মাধমে বাদী-পিটিশনারের নিকট মামলাধীন সম্পত্তিটি বন্ধক দেখিয়ে ঋণ গ্রহণ করেছিল। আপীল আদালত ১নং বিবাদীর প্রাপ্ত ঋণের জন্য কিভাবে ২নং বিবাদী দায়ী ছিল সে সম্পর্কে কোনো কারণ উল্লেখ করেনি। আপীল আদালত হঠাৎ করে বাদী-পিটিশনারকে ৩নং বিবাদীর ঋণ পরিশোধের ব্যর্থতায় ডিক্রির অর্থ ২নং বিবাদীর নিকট হতে আদায়ের নির্দেশ দেয়। আপীল আদালতের এই ধরণের নির্দেশনা নথিবদ্ধ প্রমাণের বিরুদ্ধে। আমরা মনে করি, হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ সঠিকভাবে পর্যবেক্ষণ করেছেন যে, ২নং বিবাদী তার জমাকৃত অর্থ ফেরতের জন্য সংশ্লিষ্ট আদালতে যোগাযোগ করতে পারত।…..Investment and Commerce BankLtd. (IFIC Bank Ltd).-Vs.-Abdur Rahman and others (Civil) 1 ALR (AD) 65

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]

Section 44–– অর্থঋণ আদালতের মামলায় অন্তবর্তীকালীন আদেশ হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের রীট এখতিয়ার বলে চ্যালেঞ্জ করার বিষয়টি হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের বিভিন্ন বিচারিক সিদ্ধান্ত দ্বারা প্রতিষ্ঠিত। হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ তার বিতর্কিত রায়ে বিষয়টি সম্পর্কে বিস্তারিত আলোচনায় অর্থঋণ আদালত আইনের ৪৪ ধারাকে উল্লেখ করেছে। রায়ে বলা হয়েছে, অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর বিশেষ বিধান অনুসারে অন্তবর্তীকালীন আদেশ আপীল বা রিভিশন আদালতে চ্যালেঞ্জ যাবে না। তবে অন্তবর্তীকালীন আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে অন্যকোনো প্রতিকার না থাকায় রীট এখতিয়ারে প্রতিকারযোগ্য। আমরা হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের উপরোক্ত পর্যবেক্ষণ ও সিদ্ধান্তের সহিত একমত। বিতর্কিত আদেশটি অন্তবর্তীকালীন আদেশ ছিল। ২০০৩ সালের আইনে স্পষ্টভাবে বলা হয়েছে, অর্থঋণ আদালত কর্তৃক প্রদত্ত কোনো আদেশ অন্তবর্তীকালীন আপীল বা রিভিশন আদালতে চ্যালেঞ্জ করা যাবে না। তবে অর্থঋণ আদালতের অন্তবর্তীকালীন আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে সংক্ষুদ্ধ ব্যক্তি হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের রীট এখতিয়ারের প্রতিকার খুঁজতে পারবে। বিষয়টি ইতোমধ্যেই হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের বিভিন্ন বিচারিক সিদ্ধান্ত দ্বারা প্রতিষ্ঠিত যে, অর্থঋণ আদালত কর্তৃক প্রদত্ত অন্তবর্তীকালীন আদেশটি হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের রীট এখতিয়ারের মাধ্যমে প্রতিকারযোগ্য। ...M/S. Orient Trading Corporation =VS= Janata Bank, [9 LM (AD) 170] ....View Full Judgment

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.

Section 45— মামলার পক্ষদ্বয় কর্তৃক বিরোধের শান্তিপূর্ণ নিষ্পত্তির জন্য আইনের ৪৫ ধারায় নন অবসট্যান্টি ক্লজ সন্নিবেশিত হয়েছে। আইনের উদ্দেশ্য বাস্তবায়নে সম্পত্তি বিক্রি হয়ে যাওয়ার পরেও যদি ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নের মামলা চূড়ান্ত না হয় তাহলে আদালত তার ক্ষমতা বলে মামলার যেকোনো পর্যায়ে ন্যায় বিচারের স্বার্থে বিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি করতে পারবে। .....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]

Section 47 r/w sec.30— ফাইনাল নোটিশ- নোটিশ থেকে প্রতীয়মান হয়, বিষয়টি ঋণগ্রহীতার নিকট অনুরোধ ছিল। আপীলকারী-ব্যাংক শুধুমাত্র বাদীকে (প্রতিবাদী) তার ঋণের অর্থ সমন্বয়ের স্মরণের জন্য নোটিশ দিয়েছিল বিধায় বাদীকে (প্রতিবাদী) ফাইনাল নোটিশ দেওয়া হলেও মামলার কোনো কারণ সৃষ্টি করে নাই যাতে করে বাদী (প্রতিবাদী) সংক্ষুব্ধ হয়ে নোটিশ অবৈধ, বাতিল ও খারাপ উদ্দেশ্যে এবং তার উপর বাধ্যকর না ঘোষণার জন্য মামলা দায়ের করা যায়। এই বাইরে নথি থেকে প্রতিয়মান হয় যে, ২১.১১.২০১১ খ্রি. তারিখের ফাইনাল নোটিশের প্রায় দুই বছর পর আপীলকারী-ব্যাংক তার আইনজীবীর মাধ্যমে ১১.০৩.২০১৩ খ্রি. তারিখে লিগ্যাল নোটিশ প্রেরণ করেছিল। ফলে অর্থঋণ আদালত আইনের অধীন অর্থঋণ আদালতে মামলা দায়েরের পূর্বে ব্যাংক পত্রের মাধ্যমে ঋণের অর্থ পরিশোধ ও সমন্বয়েরর জন্য যোগাযোগ করতো। বিষয়টি অপরিপক্ক হওয়ায় দেওয়ানি আদালতে দায়েরকৃত মামলাটি আইন অনুসারে গ্রহণযোগ্য ছিল না। উপরোক্ত কারণে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ আপীল মঞ্জুরের মাধ্যমে মারাত্মক ভুল করেছে। ফলে বর্তমান আপীলটি কোনো খরচের আদেশ ছাড়াই মঞ্জুর করা হয়। .....Janata Bank Limited =VS= Al-haj A. K. M. Moazzem Hossain, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 72] ....View Full Judgment

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
Sections 47, 50(2)
The Constitution of Bangladesh
Article 104
A writ petition does not lie against the judgment and decree passed in an artha rin suit– We 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. And accordingly, we invoke the said power and these appeals are disposed in the following terms:
Defendant-respondent No.1(the writ-petitioner) is directed to pay the admitted principal loan amount of taka 4,68,000˙00X3 =14,04,000˙00 in connection with Artha Rin Suit No.364 of 2004 and taka 1,20,577˙53X3=3,61,732˙59 in connection with Artha Rin Suit No.351 of 2004 to the plaintiff-Bank.
The defendant shall also pay interest on the principal loan amount from the date of filing of the suit upto date as per provision of section 50(2) of the Ain, 2003. The respective decree passed in the respective artha rin suit stands modified accordingly. ...Rupali Bank Ltd. =VS= Md. Shamser Ali, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 28]

Sections 47, 50(2)— অর্থঋণ আদালতের রায় ও আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে রীট দায়ের করা যায় না। ন্যায় বিচারের স্বার্থে মূলধনের পরিমাণের উপর বাদী-ব্যাংকের ২০০% এর অধিক দাবীর বিপরীতে বিচারিক আদালতের ডিক্রির বিরুদ্ধে হস্তক্ষেপের জন্য সংবিধানের ১০৪ অনুচ্ছেদ উপযুক্ত ও কার্যকর বলে আমাদের নিকট মনে হয়। ৩৬৪/২০০৪ নং অর্থঋণ মামলায় ১ নং প্রতিবাদী (রীট পিটিশনার) কে ঋণের আসল ১৪,০৪,০০০০০ টাকা এবং ৩৫১/২০০৪ নং অর্থঋণ মামলায় ৩,৬১,৭৩২৫৯ টাকা বাদী-ব্যাংকে প্রদানের নির্দেশ দেয়। বিবাদী ২০০৩ সালের আইনের ৫০(২) ধারা বিধানের অধীন মামলা দায়েরের তারিখে ঋণের আসল অর্থের উপর সুদ প্রদান করবে। এভাবে অর্থঋণ মামলার আদেশের সংস্কার করা হয়। ...Rupali Bank Ltd. =VS= Md. Shamser Ali, [10 LM (AD) 28] ....View Full Judgment

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.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner that his client has agreed to pay the proposed amount of Tk.1,51,66,000/- (one crore fifty one lac and sixty six thousand) within period 6(six) months as proposed by the Bank, this matter can now be brought to a close. Section 47, 60 (3) We direct the petitioner Messers Monsur Knitting and Hosiery Industries Limited to pay to Bangladesh Development Bank Limited (BDBL), respondent No.3, the sum of Tk. 1,51,66,000/- (one crore fifty one lac and sixty six thousand)within 6 months from 06.12.2020, failing which the instant civil petition for leave to appeal shall stand dismissed. ...Messers Monsur Knitting and Hosiery Industries Ltd. =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, Sylhet, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 338]

Section 47, 60 (3)— ২০০৩ সালের আইন বলবৎ হওয়ার পূর্বে ১৯৯০ সালের আইনের অধীন দায়েরকৃত মামলায় আইনসভা এই আইনের ৪৭ ধারা প্রয়োগের সুযোগ রেখেছেন। ২০০৩ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন ০১.০৫. ২০০৩ খ্রি. তারিখে বলবৎ হয় এবং ৪৭ ধারা ০১.০৫.২০০৪ খ্রি. তারিখে কার্যকর হয়। কিন্তু মামলা দায়ের করা হয় ২৫.০৪.২০০৪ খ্রি. তারিখে। ফলে ২০০৩ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালত আইনের ৪৭ ধারা এই মামলার ক্ষেত্রে প্রয়োগযোগ্য না। পিটিশনারের আইনজীবীর বক্তব্য হলো তার মক্কেল ব্যাংকের প্রস্তাব অনুসারের ৬ মাসের মধ্যে ১,৫১,৬৬,০০০ টাকা পরিশোধে সম্মত বিধায় মামলাটি এখানেই সমাপ্ত করা উচিৎ। ফলে আমরা মেসার্স মনসুর নিটিং এবং হোসেয়ারি ইন্ডাস্ট্রিজ লিমিটেডকে, ৩নং প্রতিবাদী বাংলাদেশ ডেভেলপমেন্ট ব্যাংক লি.-কে ৬ মাসের মধ্যে ১,৫১,৬৬,০০০ টাকা পরিশোধের নির্দেশ দিচ্ছি। অন্যথায় সিভিল লিভ টু আপীল খারিজ হবে। ...Messers Monsur Knitting and Hosiery Industries Ltd. =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, Sylhet, [10 LM (AD) 338] ....View Full Judgment

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]

Sections 47, 60— ধার্য সুদ- ব্যাংককে অর্থঋণ আদালতের ৪৭ ধারা প্রয়োগের সুযোগ প্রদান করেছে যা ঋণের আসল অর্থের ২০০% এর বেশি সুদ নির্ধারনকে সীমিত করে এবং ৪৭ ধারা হতে প্রতীয়মান হয়, আইনসভার উদ্দেশ্য ছিল ঋণগ্রহীতাকে সুদ সংক্রান্ত বিষয়ে প্রতিকার প্রদান করা। .....Humayun Hossain Khan =VS= Ministry of Finance, BD, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 585] ....View Full Judgment

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.(Civil) 1 ALR (AD)127

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.
The Appellate Division observed that from a reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 47, it is clear that a financial institution shall not be entitled to make claim more than 200% on the actual loan advanced to a party. Sub-section (2) is more explicit and it has categorically stated that the claim of a financial institution more than 200% of the actual loan shall not be acceptable by the Adalat. .....Rupali Bank Ltd -Vs.- Md. Shamser Ali and others (Civil) 19 ALR (AD) 176-180

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.
The Appellate Division opined that in this regard, the learned Advocate for the appellant rightly referred the decisions as noted hereinbefore. So the Appellate Division does not feel it at all necessary to re-open the issue and the Appellate Division hold that the writ petitions filed before the High Court Division were not maintainable. .....Rupali Bank Ltd -Vs.- Md. Shamser Ali and others (Civil) 19 ALR (AD) 176-180

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”
In the light of such observation this Court gave an opportunity to the petitioner to make an application to the bank to exercise its discretion and, accordingly, an application was made to the bank by the petitioner on 11.11.2020. Initially the bank by filing an additional paper book dated 22.11.2020 sought to explain how the bank had given every opportunity to the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues of the bank. However, by a subsequent additional paper book dated 06.12.2020 the bank expressed the decision of its governing body in its letter dated 06.12.2020 to accept the sum of Tk.1,51,66,000/- (one crore fifty one lac and sixty six thousand)to be paid within a period of 6(six) months. When the matter is taken up for hearing on 10.12.2020 the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is agreeable to pay the sum now demanded by the bank. In view of the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that his client has agreed to pay the proposed amount of Tk.1,51,66,000/- (one crore fifty one lac and sixty six thousand) within period 6(six) months as proposed by the Bank, this matter can now be brought to a close. Hence, we direct the petitioner Messers Monsur Knitting and Hosiery Industries Limited to pay to Bangladesh Development Bank Limited (BDBL), respondent No.3, the sum of Tk. 1,51,66,000/- (one crore fifty one lac and sixty six thousand)within 6 months from 06.12.2020, failing which the instant civil petition for leave to appeal shall stand dismissed. With the above observations and direction the civil petition for leave to appeal is disposed of. .....Messers Monsur –Vs.- Learned Joint District Judge, (Civil), 30 ALR (AD) 56.

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.
It is to be borne in mind that if the borrower fails to pay the borrowed money within the time stipulated, then, naturally the interest of loan money will remain increased. Because of negligence of the plaintiff, this incidence occurred in the case. As a result, a big amount of money has been figured against the loan money. However, this matter is absolutely related to the transactions made in the bank with the plaintiff borrower. If there has been any illegality committed in the assessment of the rate of interest by the bank, that could have been adjudicated by filing suit in the Artha Rin Adalat, but not in the civil Court. .....Janata Bank Ltd. vs AKM Moazzem Hossain (Civil) 76 DLR (AD) 128

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.

Section 48— মামলা নিষ্পত্তি ও আপীল দায়েরের সময় -অষ্টম অধ্যায়ে বর্ণিত মামলা দায়ের ও নিষ্পত্তি সম্পর্কে বর্ণিত ভিন্ন সময় সম্পর্কে ৪৫ থেকে ৪৬ ধারা সম্পর্কে স্পষ্ট ধারণা পাওয়া যাবে। উপরে বর্ণিত বিষয় সম্পর্কে আমাদের সিদ্ধান্ত হলো প্রতিবাদীর যুক্তিগ্রহণ করে ৪৮ ধারা বিধানের অধীন আপীল দায়ের করা হলে দেশের আইনবিজ্ঞানের উপর মারাত্মক বিরূপ প্রভাব ফেলবে এমন ধারণা অন্যায্য। [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.

Section 49— বছরে চারটা কিস্তির মাধ্যমে ডিক্রির অর্থ পরিশোধের পর দায়িকের আবেদন উপযুক্ত ও যথাযথ প্রতীয়মান হলে আদালত ৪৯ ধারার অধীন উপযুক্ত আদেশ প্রদান করতে পারে।.....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.
The Appellate Division held that the 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. It added that as the plaintiff bank produced no proper accounts and bank statement, before the trial Court, it is very difficult to determine what interest the bank is entitled to. It added that admittedly there was no formal sanction letter for LIM and no document was executed for LIM facilities, and hence there is nothing to show the rate of interest of LIM facilities. …..Janata Bank Ltd. -Vs.- Messars Betka Poultry and Dairy Complex and others (Civil) 8 ALR (AD) 193-196

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.
Section 50(2)—If the judgement debtor had paid the decretal amount within the period stipulated by the trial Court, then the rate of interest applicable at that time would have been the appropriate rate of interest to be paid. Since the judgement debtor did not pay the decretal amount in accordance with the order of the Court it would be liable to pay at the various rates which may change from time to time. .....Rajib Traders vs Artha Rin Adalat, 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.
The Appellate Division is of the view that the direction given by the High Court Division to calculate interest pendente lite from 20.01.2013 is erroneous. The interest pendente lite is to be calculated in accordance with the rates applicable at the relevant times after the filing of the suit on 30.07.2008. According to section 50(2) of the Ain the judgement debtor will be liable to interest at the increased rate for bringing the matter to the High Court Division by way of Writ Petition No. 8843 of 2014 in spite of the fact that the incorrectly claimed rate of interest in Artha Zari Case No. 118 of 2014 had been amended by an application filed on 28.08.2014. The civil petition for leave to appeal is disposed of. ...Premier Bank Limited =VS= Mampower Ltd., Dhaka, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 319]

Section 50(2)—মামলা বিচারাধীন অবস্থায় সুদ হিসাব-হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ সঠিকভাবে সুদ হার নির্ণয় করেছে যা মোট বকেয়া হিসাবের সময় ব্যবহার করা উচিৎ ছিল। কিন্তু ডিক্রি প্রদানের তারিখ হতে সংশোধিত আরজি দাখিল করার সময়ের জন্য সুদের অনুমতি না দেওয়া ভুল সিদ্ধান্ত ছিল। আপীল বিভাগ মনে করে, মামলা বিচারাধীন অবস্থায় ২০.০১.২০১৩ খ্রি. তারিখ হতে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের সুদ হিসাবের নির্দেশনাটি ভুল। মামলা বিচারাধীন অবস্থায় ৩০.০৭.২০০৮ খ্রি. তারিখে মামলা দায়ের পর প্রাসঙ্গিক সময়ে প্রযোজ্য সুদের হার অনুসারে সুদ হিসাব করতে হয়। ২৮.০৮.২০১৪ খ্রি. তারিখে সংশোধিত আবেদনের ৮৮৪৩/২০১৪ নং অর্থ জারির মামলায় ভুলভাবে দাবীকৃত সুদহারের পরিবর্তে আইনের ৫০(২) ধারার বিধান অনুসারে দায়িক হাইকোর্ট বিভাগে ৮৮৪৩/২০১৪ নং রীটের প্রেক্ষিতে উচ্চহারে সুদ প্রদানের জন্য দায়ী থাকবে। এভাবে লিভ টু আপীল সিভিল পিটিশনটি নিষ্পত্তি করা হয়। …..Premier Bank Limited =VS= Mampower Ltd., Dhaka, [10 LM (AD) 319] ....View Full Judgment

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

Section 50— ব্যাংকের সুদহার হিসাব করা হবে বিদ্যমান সুদহারের ভিত্তিতে। মামলা দায়ের থেকে শুরু করে দায়িক কর্তৃক ডিক্রির অর্থ পরিশোধের সুদহার সময়ের ব্যবধানে ভিন্ন হলেও আপীল বিভাগ মনে করে দায়িক কর্তৃক পরিশোধযোগ্য সুদ হিসাব হবে বিদ্যমান সুদহারের ভিত্তিতে। .....M/S. Rajib Traders =VS= Artha Rin Adalat & another, [1 LM (AD) 186] ....View Full Judgment

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.
Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of 2003) [As amended from time to time in this Act]
The Appellate Division is of the view that the interest to be paid by the judgement debtor will have to be calculated according to the prevailing interest rate or rates, which may be different for different periods, from the time of filing of the suit till the payment of the decretal amount by the judgement debtor.
মামলা দায়ের করার সময় থেকে নিয়ে খাতক কর্তৃক decretal অর্থের ওপর সুদ প্রদেয় হবে যখন যে রকম সুদ থাকবে তার উপর ভিত্তি করে।
আপীল বিভাগ এই মত পোষণ করেন যে, খাতক কর্তৃক যে সুদ প্রদেয় হবে, সেটি প্রচলিত হারেই হিসাব করতে হবে যেটি বিভিন্ন সময়ের জন্য বিভিন্ন হতে পারে এবং উক্ত মামলাটি দায়ের করার সময় থেকে নিয়ে খাতক কর্তৃক decretal অর্থের ওপর প্রদেয় হবে। …..M/S. Rajib Traders -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat DJ Jessore and another (Civil) 7 ALR (AD) 14

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.
The Appellate Division held that the personal guarantees filed by the plaintiff (the Bank) in the suit are admitted personal guarantees as per the application under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Code and, as such, there was hardly any scope for examining the admitted personal guarantees executed by defendant Nos. 4 and 5. It is evident that the learned Judge of the Adalat lawfully rejected the application for examining the signatures by Handwriting Expert. It is crystal clear that the subsequent application for examining their signatures on the ground that defendant Nos. 4 and 5 have not executed personal guarantees is nothing but a cunning device to delay the disposal of the suit. There is no reason for sending the admitted signatures of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 for examination by Handwriting Expert. The learned Judges of the High Court Division without considering the said admitted facts disposed of the Writ Petition unlawfully by giving complete relief to the writ petitioners without affording any opportunity to the Bank for hearing of the matter. In view of the above, apparently the impugned Judgment and order passed by the High Court Division is unlawful. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, the Appellate Division finds merit in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner-Bank. In view of the above, this leave petition is disposed of. Accordingly, the Judgment and order passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 3653 of 2016 is set aside. .....Southeast Bank Limited -Vs.- Laila Hossain and others (Civil) 20 ALR (AD) 64-66

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.
We are of the view that the High Court Division on proper consideration of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision and there is no illegality or infirmity in the above decision so as to call for any interference. .....City Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat Barisal, 17 BLT (AD) 209.

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.
Section 57—It is a power to promote justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court but if the Adalat finds that by practicing fraud or by false representation a party has obtained a judgment or order, the Adalat can always interfere, and even the argument of functus officio cannot stand on its way to pass such orders which may advance justice to a party. .....Jahangir Kabir Chowdhury vs Bangladesh, 22 BLC (AD) 139.
Section 57—The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable for execution of a decree, but then also, there is a provision for filing objection by a third party against the decree or order of sale of mortgaged property. Though there are some stringent provisions contained in the Ain on the question of auction sale, appeal, revision, detention in civil prison, there are provisions for making interlocutory orders by the Adalat if it finds that such order is necessary for securing the ends of justice. .....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]

Section 57— যদি আদালত সন্তুষ্ট হয় যে, আদেশটি চাতুর্যের সহিত প্রতারণা বা ভুল উপস্থাপনার মাধ্যমে আদায় করা হয়েছে তাহলে আদালত তার নিকট বিচারাধীন মামলার আদেশ বাতিল করতে পারবে। তবে পূর্বশর্ত হলো মামলটি আদালতের নিকট বিচারাধীন থাকতে হবে। বিচারাধীন মামলায় আদালত যেকোনো অন্তর্নিহিত ক্ষমতা প্রয়োগ করতে পারবে। মামলা নিষ্পত্তির পর পুনরায় মামলা চালুর মাধ্যমে আইনের ৫৭ ধারা প্রয়োগ ন্যায় সঙ্গত ছিল না। মামলাটি ২(ক)-(ঘ) বিবাদী সহ প্রতিদ্বন্দি অন্যদের বিরুদ্ধে একতরফা নিষ্পত্তি করা হয়। আদালতে ৫৭ ধারার অন্তর্নিহিত ক্ষমতা আইন অনুসারে প্রয়োগ করা উচিত এবং যদি আইনের নির্দিষ্ট বিধান প্রয়োজন মিটায় তাহলে উক্ত নির্দিষ্ট বিধান অনুসরণ ব্যতীত অন্তর্নিহিত ক্ষমতা প্রয়োগ করা উচিত না। .....Parvin Akter =VS= Eastern Bank Ltd., [5 LM (AD) 162] ....View Full Judgment

Parvin Akter =VS= Eastern Bank Ltd. 5 LM (AD) 162
Section 57

Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
Section 57
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Order 21 Rule 90
Auction sale– It appears that 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 on 25.08.2005 is not entertainable and further the application filed under Section 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 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. Appellate Division does not find any merit in the application. The petition is accordingly dismissed. .....Mansur Rahman(Md.) =VS= Abdul Mannan Sardar, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 571]

Section 57— নিলাম বিক্রয়- ২৫.০৮.২০০৫ খ্রি. তারিখে দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধির আদেশ ২১, বিধি ৯০ এর অধীন আবেদন নিষ্পত্তির পর আইনের ৫৭ ধারার অধীন নিলাম বিক্রি বাতিলের আবেদনটি গ্রহণযোগ্য নয় এবং অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ৫৭ ধারার অধীন অধিকতর আবেদনও আইনে সমর্থনীয় না। উপরোক্ত ঘটনার প্রেক্ষিতে দায়িক দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধির আদেশ ২১, বিধি ৯৮ ও অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন,২০০৩ এর অধীন নিলাম বিক্রি বাতিলের আবেদন করেও ব্যর্থ হয়। আবেদনে উপযোগিতা না থাকায় আপীল বিভাগ পিটিশনটি খারিজ করে দেয়। .....Mansur Rahman(Md.) =VS= Abdul Mannan Sardar, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 571] ....View Full Judgment

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]

Section 60(3)— রুল খারিজে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ সিদ্ধান্ত হলো, ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নের মামলাটি ১৯৯০ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালত আইনের অধীন প্রতিষ্ঠিত আদালতে বিচারাধীন ছিল এবং একই সময়ে ২০০৩ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন কার্যকর হয়। আইনের ৬০(৩) ধারা অনুসারে ১৯৯০ সালের বাতিলকৃত আইনের অধীন বিচারাধীন মামলাসহ সকল প্রক্রিয়ায় এখতিয়ার সংক্রান্ত কোনো সমস্যা না থাকায় তাৎক্ষণিকভাবে ২০০৩ সালের আইনের অধীন প্রতিষ্ঠিত আদালতে স্থানান্তরিত হবে। ১৯৯০ সালের বিচারাধীন সকল মামলা ২০০৩ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালতের অধীন প্রতিষ্ঠিত আদালতে স্থানান্তরিত হওয়ার বিষয়ে আইনপ্রণেতাদের ইচ্ছা সম্পর্কে আমাদের কোনো সন্দেহ ছিল না। .....Shahidul Islam =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, [4 LM (AD) 329] ....View Full Judgment

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

Section 60(3)— মামলাটি ১৯৯০ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালত আইনের অধীন প্রতিষ্ঠিত আদালতে বিচারাধীন ছিল এবং একই সময়ে ২০০৩ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন কার্যকর হয়। আইনের ৬০(৩) ধারা অনুসারে ১৯৯০ সালের বাতিলকৃত আইনের অধীন বিচারাধীন মামলাসহ সকল প্রক্রিয়া এখতিয়ার সংক্রান্ত কোনো সমস্যা না থাকায় তাৎক্ষণিকভাবে ২০০৩ সালের আইনের অধীন প্রতিষ্ঠিত আদালতে স্থানান্তরিত হবে। .....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