Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Public Demand Recovery Act,1913 (III of 1913) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 4, 6 and 16 |
Section 16 of the PDR Act refers to interest, costs and charge which are
recoverable in respect of every certificate which has been filed under
section 4 or section 6. In other words, these include the amounts which are
leviable from time to time in respect of the certificate after it has been
filed. It should be noted that upto the stage of filing of a certificate
under section 4 or 6 whatever sums become due are entered in the
certificate, and they are-
|
Md. Shahin Ikbal Vs. General Certificate Officer & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 168 |
Section 4 |
“That they were jointly recoverable and its recover by suit is not barred by Law’. Omission of these words does not affect validity of a certificate. Shafiqur Rahman Vs. Certificate Officer (1977) 29 DLR (SC) 234. |
Shafiqur Rahman Vs. Certificate Officer | 29 DLR (SC) 234 |
Section 4 |
Issuance of certificate under section 4 of the Act itself on the basis of requisition signed by the Bank manager shall be conclusive proof that the amount specified therein is due to the Bank and further determination is excluded. Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprises and another 52 DLR (AD) 57. |
Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprises and another | 52 DLR (AD) 57 |
Sections 5 and 6 |
Duty of the Certificate Officer:
|
Md. Shahin Ikbal Vs. General Certificate Officer & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 168 |
Sections 5 and 6 |
It is true that a certificate tantamounts to decree. It cannot be denied that the Certificate Officer’s position is like an Executing Court for enforcing the decree of the Civil Court. ...Md. Shahin Ikbal Vs. General Certificate Officer & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 168 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Shahin Ikbal Vs. General Certificate Officer & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 168 |
Sections 5 and 6 |
Interest should be imposed as per law:
|
Md. Shahin Ikbal Vs. General Certificate Officer & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 168 |
Section 7 |
Action under section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act can only be taken against a certificate debtor and not one who is not already a certificate debtor. Kumudini Welfare Trust Vs. Pakistan (1960) 12 DLR (SC) 17. |
Kumudini Welfare Trust Vs. Pakistan | 12 DLR (SC) 17 |
Section 7 |
—Consequences following from service of notice under section 7.
|
Shafiqur Rahman Vs. Certificate Officer | 29 DLR (SC) 233 |
sections 7, 8, 9, &10 |
—Requirements to comply with the provisions embodied in sections 7, 8, 9,
&10.
|
Shafiqur Rahman Vs. Certificate Officer | 29 DLR (SC) 234 |
Section 7 |
A memo of delivery of possession plays a vital role in the possession of a
fishery.
|
Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Moulavi Bazar and others. -Vs.-Pirpur Fishermen's Co-operative Society Limited | 4 ALR (AD) 213 |
Section 7 and rule 47 |
Boynama is not genuine and tainted by fraud–– Appellate Division is not in a position to interfere with those findings of fact as has been taken by the appellate Court below being the last Court of fact since there is no room for non-consideration and mis-appreciation of fact. Moreover, there is no assertion in the pleading of the defendants to the effect that Niranjon was ever served with the notice under section 7 and rule 47 of the PDR Act and Rules respectively. We have seen that the plaintiffs are the heirs of C.S. tenant and the defendant-petitioner claimed to have purchased the suit land through auction purchased, so the defendants are to prove the fact of auction sale and we find no anomaly in fixation of onus as has been done by the appellate Court below. The schedule of the certified copy of boynama shows some interpolations and insertion of some plots which goes to show that the said boynama is not genuine and tainted by means of fraud. This Division does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, which in our view does not call for any interference. ...Noor Islam Mir(Md.) =VS= Gonopoti Mistry, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 463] ....View Full Judgment |
Noor Islam Mir(Md.) =VS= Gonopoti Mistry | 11 LM (AD) 463 |
Sections 8 & 13 |
Where an assessee transfers the property in respect of which dues are charged, proper course for the authority to adopt is to attach the property itself—The only Acton which could properly be taken by the Income-Tax authorities for recovery the income-tax dues was to take out attachment the properties in this particular case on the basis they vested, in the àssessee R.P. and, thereupon, should have been open to the Trust to make an objection before the certificate-officer and thereby making it possible to obtain a resolution of the question, arising in this matter in accordance with I jurisdiction provided by the law. Kumudini Welfare Trust Vs. Pakistan (1960) 12 DLR (SC) 17. |
Kumudini Welfare Trust Vs. Pakistan | 12 DLR (SC) 17 |
Sections 10A |
The legislature as a policy decision made the changes in the law for quick recovery of the loan. Thus section 10A of the Act which provides for a special procedure relating to recovery of dues cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal. Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprise and another 50 DLR (AD) 194. |
Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprise and another | 50 DLR (AD) 194 |
Sections 10A |
The High Court Division wrongly held that section 10A of the Act provides arbitrary power without a provision for hearing. It is the policy of .the legislature to make an enactment to that effect. It cannot be said that the law is bad because it is not in consonance with the principle of natural justice and it is harsh and arbitrary. Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprise and another 50 DLR (AD) 194. |
Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprise and another | 50 DLR (AD) 194 |
Sections 10A, 51, 52 & 54 |
On a reference to other provisions of the Act, it is found that all the defaulting borrowers of Krishi Bank are entitled to equal protection of law provided by the Act by way of appeal, review and revision and as such the learned Judges wrongly held that section 10A offends Articles 27 and 31 of the Constitution. Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprise and another 50 DLR (AD) 194 |
Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprise and another | 50 DLR (AD) 194 |
Sections 13 |
Issue of a warrant—Issue of a distress warrant in advance against a certificate-debtor is permissible only in relation to movable property under the proviso to section 13 of the Act which provides for attachment of the whole or any part of any movable property belonging to the certificate-debtor. Kumudini Welfare Trust Vs. Pakistan (1950) 12 DLR (SC) 17. |
Kumudini Welfare Trust Vs. Pakistan | 12 DLR (SC) 17 |
Section 16 |
By and large after filing the Certificate Case, the calculation of interest has to be made in accordance with section 16 of the PDR Act. If the contention of the respondent-Bank is accepted that the interest and charges are recoverable on the certificate amount upto the date of realization as per the mandate of section 16 of the PDR Act, then it would be safely concluded that the interest imposed during the pendency of the Certificate Case was also unlawful and unjustified. ...Md. Shahin Ikbal Vs. General Certificate Officer & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 168 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Shahin Ikbal Vs. General Certificate Officer & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 168 |
Section 19(3) |
Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913
|
Md. Taherul Islam =VS= Speaker, Bangladesh Jatiya Sangsad | 16 LM (AD) 500 |
Sections 20 |
Defendant without title was in possession of the land sold in
auction—Plaintiffs purchase of the land in certificate sale—Effect.
|
Golam Hafiz Vs. Khadem Ali | 29 DLR (SC) 312 |
Sections 23, 36 |
Without preferring appeal to the DC (Revenue) and without observing all the
formalities to the Revenue Court, the plaintiffs filed the present suit
which is clearly barred under section 36 of the PDR Act–– Appellate
Division is of the opinion that the plaintiffs have hopelessly failed to
prove their possession over the suit land. The appellate Court as final
Court of fact came to clear finding that the defendant got possession
through Court which was affirmed by the High Court Division. In view of the
fact as stated above, the suit itself is not maintainable without praying
for recovery of khas possession.
|
Shamsun Nahar =VS= Sirajul Islam | 11 LM (AD) 469 |
Sections 36 |
Import of section 36 explained—Effect of non-service u/s 7.
|
Golam Hafez Vs. Khadem | 29 DLR (SC) 313 |
Section 36 |
The plaintiff—respondents had moved the Circle Officer (Revenue) for
setting aside the auction sale ignoring the provisions of section 36 of PDR
Act. Fraud and collusion in holding auction sale were not proved.
|
Alauddin Sardar vs Surendra Nath Falia | 40 DLR (AD) 257 |
Sentence of Fine: whether it is a Public Demand- |
Sentence of Fine: whether it is a Public Demand;
|
Md. Golam Morshed Vs. Court of the Executive Magistrate & General Certificate Officer, Dhaka, & anr. | 14 SCOB [2020] HCD 101 |
A memo of delivery of possession plays a vital role in the possession of a fishery and in the absence of which the appellants cannot claim that respondent No.1 possessed the fishery and should pay for it– The writ-petitioner has asserted in its petition that no possession of the disputed fishery during relevant year under claim was delivered and nothing could be shown that the respondent was ever in possession of the fishery in question for the relevant period. The appellants though asserted that they were in possession of the fishery and accordingly claimed the amount for the lease period from 1396 to 1398 B.S. and for which no premium was paid but the same is contradicted in Annexure-E to the writ petition and accordingly, the appellants could not claim the said amount for the period in which they were not in possession of fishery in question. The appellant as well could not prove that the respondent No.1 was in possession of the disputed fishery for later period beyond the lease period and in the absence of material on record could be drawn for the alleged possession simply because it was in possession of the fishery in question in the former period. Moreover, the appellant could not show any memo. of delivery of possession showing that the possession of the fishery in question for the relevant period was handed over or they were ever in possession for which they are liable to pay the salami for the period. We find no substance in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. …ADC, Moulavi Bazar=VS=Pirpur Fishermen's Co-operative Society Ltd., (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 14] ....View Full Judgment |
ADC, Moulavi Bazar=VS=Pirpur Fishermen's Co-operative Society Ltd. | 8 LM (AD) 14 |