Judgment and decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat was not maintainable–– The Appellate Division held that it is now well settled that a writ petition challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat was not maintainable and moreover, respondent No.1 as defendant No.4 contested the suit. Such a decree can only be challenged by filing an appeal within the statutory period of limitation on depositing 50% of decretal amount. .....Agrani Bank =VS= Mrs. Hosne Ara Begum & another, [1 LM (AD) 334] ....View Full Judgment

‘Prescribed’ means–– ‘Prescribed’ would mean prescribed by law. In the facts of the instant case the ‘prescribed rate’ was amended more than once since 01.04.2004. .....M/S. Rajib Traders =VS= Artha Rin Adalat & another, [1 LM (AD) 186] ....View Full Judgment

When collusion and fraud have been established and illegal order/direction and decrees have been obtained from the Court Appellate Division cannot its eyes forward to undo the wrongs by setting aside the illegal decree–– When collusion and fraud have been established and illegal order/direction and decrees have been obtained from the Courts, this Court cannot shut its eyes and remain a silent spectator. This Court must come forward to undo the wrongs by setting aside the illegal decrees. This Apex Court has the duty and obligation to rise to the occasion in order to do substantial and complete justice. Since collusion and fraud affect the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the Courts, this Court, in exercise of its extra-ordinary power, is authorised to set aside the decrees obtained illegally by collusion. The learned Judges of the High Court Division have issued an absolutely illegal order directing the Artha Rin Adalat to decree the suits in a specified manner which has eroded the confidence of the litigants to the suits and will have the effect of undermining the credibility of the judiciary as whole. Accordingly, the leave petition is disposed of. The judgments and decrees dated 16.10.2017 passed by the Artha Rin Adalat No.3, Dhaka in Artha Rin Suit Nos.382 of 2016 and 1618 of 2016 are set aside. The Adalat is directed to proceed with both the suits in accordance with law. The Rule issued in Contempt Petition No.239 of 2019 is hereby discharged. …National Bank Limited =VS= M.R. Trading Company, [7 LM (AD) 216] ....View Full Judgment

50 lacs as damage and compensation penalising the bank–– The High Court Division found that the exigencies demanded an expeditious disposal of the proposal made by the plaintiff company for sale of some of the land mortgaged with the bank with a view to salvaging the plaintiff Mills, and hence, since the bank did not act promptly, it should be made liable to pay Tk. 50 lacs to the plaintiff company. The High Court Division felt that had the bank taken prompt action with regard to the proposed sale of the land then the bank’s loan could have been managed preventing litigation between the parties. .....W. Rahman Jute Mills Ltd. =VS= Rupali Bank Ltd., [3 LM (AD) 499] ....View Full Judgment

Doctrine of stare decisis must not be applied at the cost of justice:
The doctrine of stare decisis which is the binding force of precedent may be destroyed if a statute is enacted inconsistent with the decision or if it is reversed or overruled by a higher Court or it is based on the doctrine of per incuriam. The doctrine of stare decisis should not be regarded as a rigid and inevitable doctrine, which must be applied at the cost of justice. There may be cases where it may be necessary to rid the doctrine of its petrifying rigidity. The Court may, in an appropriate case, overrule a previous decision taken by it, but that should be done only for substantial and compelling reasons. Every case has to consider its own merit, peculiar facts and circumstances and therefore, in following the precedent, the Court must be very careful and cautious. …City Bank Ltd Vs. Court of 1st JDJ & Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 217 ....View Full Judgment

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 property. 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. It is no doubt, 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 a share-holder of a company is not a necessary party in the Artha Rin Suit. The chairman or the directors or any other guarantor who executed the charge document in respect of payment of loan are liable and are necessary parties in the Artha Rin Suit for the purpose of effectual adjudication of the matter between the loanee- company and the financial institutions. Chairman or director, if he did not execute any charge document, he or she shall not be liable for the loan save and except their liability to the extent of the face value of the shares he/she holds. ...Mahbub Ali Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat & ors, (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 102 ....View Full Judgment

It is settled principle that jurisdiction of a Court cannot be conferred upon consent of the parties, it is the statute only which can confer the jurisdiction of the Court. ...Mahbub Ali Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat & ors, (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 102 ....View Full Judgment

For time-barred Artharin Cases, with 50% deposit of the decretal amount, a writ petition may be entertained:
When an aggrieved party to an Artharin suit, when comes with clean hands and his move is a bonafide one directed at examining a clear-cut factual issue or legal point and not to frustrate the Artharin suit, and files a writ petition by making a 50% down payment of the decretal amount to the lender Bank/financial institution and furnishes detailed reasons for not being able to prefer an appeal within the prescribed time, in the aforesaid rarest of rare situations, this Court by exercising its ‘special jurisdiction’ under Article 102(2)(a)(ii) of the Constitution may entertain the application, for, being barred by limitation there is no other forum for the aggrieved party. ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140 ....View Full Judgment

About 10 (ten) years ago, our Apex Court (in the case of BADC -Vs-Artharin Adalat 59 DLR(AD) 6) urged the learned Advocates of this Court to be susceptive in filing a writ petition against any decree of the Artharin Adalat. But unfortunately the learned members of the Bar are coming up with the said writ petitions indiscriminately and thereby causing wastage of valuable time of this Court which is overwhelmingly overburdened with huge backlog of cases. ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140 ....View Full Judgment

Observation for JATI:
We further feel that the Judicial Administration Training Institute (JATI) should undertake a training program for the learned judges who are presiding over the Artharin Adalats with an aim to familiarize them with the interpretation of the different provisions of the Ain, 2003 so as to ensure that all the Adalats of the land use and take uniform meaning of the provisions of the Ain, 2003 and thereby help minimize preferring appeal or filing writs against the orders passed by them. ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140 ....View Full Judgment