Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Order, 1972 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Article 33 |
Article 33 of the Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha. Order (P.O. 128 of 1972) provides for filing an application before the District Judge for realisation of its outstanding dues. Such an application has to be filed before the District Judge who may hear it himself or transfer it to an Additional District Judge or a Subordinate Judge for its disposal. A Subordinate Judge acting as an Artha Rin Adalat cannot entertain such an application directly. Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs Fashion Wear Limited, 18 BLD (AD) 186. |
Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs Fashion Wear Limited | 18 BLD (AD) 186 |
Articles 33, 34 and 35 |
The Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Order is a special order which provides for three independent and alternative modes of recovery of Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha dues as contained in Articles 33, 34 and 35 of the Order. Article 33 provides for filing of an application before the District Judge. Article 34 speaks of taking over management and administration of an industrial concern and its sale while Article 35 provides for taking recourse to the Public Demands Recovery Act. Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs Azir Uddin Chowdhury, 18 BLD (AD) 145. |
Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs Azir Uddin Chowdhury | 18 BLD (AD) 145 |
Article 33(5) |
Notice requiring payment of the money before passing decree is mandatory
requirement of law—
|
Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha BSRS Vs. Mrs. Monozvara Begum being dead her heir Mir Md. Iqbal Hossain and others | 11 MLR (AD) 329 |
Article 33 |
Herein the appellant, the builders being one of the parties in the agreement, must be liable for the loan as provided by the clause "any person liable for payment" as in clause (3)-Article 33 (l)-Sangstha entitled to recover the loan money from the appellant. Dira Dockyard Engr Ltd vs BSRS 39 DLR (AD) 59 |
Dira Dockyard Engr Ltd vs BSRS | 39 DLR (AD) 59 |
Articles 33, 34 and 35 |
The trial Judge as well as the High Court Division acted illegally in granting temporary injunction in a matter covered under Article 34 of the BSRS Order which is a special enactment and it will prevail over general law. The temporary injunction order in this case had been passed contrary to the. scheme of the legislation and the purpose of the special law providing for speedy recovery of the dues of the Sangstha. Bangladesh Shilpa Rain Sangstha vs Azir Uddin Chowdhury 51 DLR (AD)96. |
Bangladesh Shilpa Rain Sangstha vs Azir Uddin Chowdhury | 51 DLR (AD) 96 |
Article 33 |
The Sangstha, alleged in Its petition that was established under P.O. No
128 of 1972 to provide credit facilities and other assistance to industrial
concerns Bangladesh. The opposite party No. 1 Tapashee Shipping Lines
Limited is a public limited company carrying on the business of water
transport — On the application of Tapashee, the Sangstha sanctioned a
loan to Tapashee for acquisition of 2 (Two) 600 DWT cargo vessels — To
that effect a loan Agreement was concluded between Tapashee and the
Sangstha on 31.5.1980
|
Dira Dockyard & Engineers Ltd & Ors Vs. BSRS & Ors | 3 BLT (AD) 207 |
Article 34 |
There is nothing in Article 34 or in any other provision of the BSRS Order to show that it is only in respect of a claim admitted by the loanee that the authority is entitled to proceed under the relevant provisions of the order for realisation of the dues. Al-Helal Rice Mills Ltd vs Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha 51 DLR (AD) 51. |
Al-Helal Rice Mills Ltd vs Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha | 51 DLR (AD) 51 |
Articles 34 and 35 |
The defendant-appellant need not have filed applications under Order VII, rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. It could have maintained applications under Article 34(5) of Presidents Order No. 128 of972, not for rejection of the plaint, but for not entertaining the suits. Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha vs Rahman Textile Mills Ltd and others 51 DLR (AD) 221. |
Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha vs Rahman Textile Mills Ltd and others | 51 DLR (AD) 221 |
Article 34(5) |
Ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Order
7 rule 11— Distinction between rejection of plaint and
non-entertainment—
|
Bangladesh Sangstha Vs. Rahman Textile Mills Ltd. & others | 4 MLR (AD) 228 |
Article 35(5)(a)(iii) |
It puts a definite embargo on any Court to pass any order of injunction or any other order prohibiting or restraining the Sangstha with regard to such taking over, sale or transfer. Article 34(5)(b) precludes the Courts of civil jurisdiction to grant an adinterim or temporary injunction in a matter covered by Article 34 of the Order. Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs Azir Uddin Chowdhury, 18 BLD (AD) 145. |
Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs Azir Uddin Chowdhury | 18 BLD (AD) 145 |