On the question of removal the name of Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation from the definition clause of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, it is found that the Appellate Division pronounced the judgment on 22-7-1996 i.e. long before coming into force of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. It is very unfortunate that Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs still did not act as per the decision of 49 DLR (AD) 80 and 47 DLR 158 thereby causes hindrance in the matter of administra­tion of Justice. It is expected that in no time Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs will act as per the aforesaid decisions and delete House Building Finance Corpora­tion from section 2 Ka(4) of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. Begum Shirin Akhtar vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation 16 BLC 1.

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.

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

Section 2(Ka)— Whether Bangladesh Development Bank Ltd. (BDBL) is a financial institution and whether it instituted suit before the Artha Rin Adalat for recovery of money.
The High Court Division observed that admittedly, Bangladesh Development Bank Ltd. (BDBL) has got license from the Government on 16.11.2009 and has started business from the same day and it has been registered from the Joint Stock Registered Office as such BDBL is a Bank Company as per section 31(1) and 31(2) of the Bank Company Act, 1991. Hence, there is no gainsaying that BDBL is certainly a financial institution as per section 2(Ka) of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, Bangladesh Bank Order 26 of 1972 and also Bank Company Act 1991. That being the position, this Rule should be discharged outright being devoid of any substance. In the result, the Rule is discharged. …..M/S Wonderland Toys Limited -Vs.- Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Dhaka and others. (Spl. Original) 13 ALR (HCD) 234-235

ধারা ২(ক)— বাংলাদেশ ডেভেলপমেন্ট ব্যাংক লি.(বিডিবিএল) আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠান কি না এবং ঋণের অর্থ আদায়ে অর্থ ঋণ আদালতে মামলা দায়ের করেছিল কি না? হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ মনে করে, বাংলাদেশ ডেভেলপমেন্ট ব্যাংক লি. (বিডিবিএল) সরকারের নিকট হতে ১৬.১১.২০০৯ খ্রি. তারিখে লাইসেন্স লাভ করে একই দিনে ব্যবসা শুরু করে এবং জয়েন্ট স্টক অফিস হতে রেজিস্ট্রেশনকৃত বিডিবিএল ব্যাংক কোম্পানি আইন, ১৯৯১ এর ধারা ৩১(১) এবং ৩১(২) এর বিধানুসারে একটি ব্যাংক কোম্পানি। তবে এটা বলা যায় না অর্থঋণ আদালত আইনের ধারা ২(ক), বাংলাদেশ ব্যাংক অর্ডার, ১৯৭২ এবং ব্যাংক কোম্পানি আইন, ১৯৯১ এর বিধানুসারে বিডিবিএল নিশ্চিতভাবে একটি আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠান। এই অবস্থায় রুল খারিজ করা উচিৎ এবং খারিজের মাধ্যমে সরাসরি উল্লেখযোগ্য কোনো পরিবর্তন করে না বিধায় রুল খারিজ করা হয়।…..M/S Wonderland Toys Limited -Vs.- Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Dhaka and others. (Spl. Original) 13 ALR (HCD) 234-235

Section 2(Ga)— The term 'contingent' or the term 'any other liabilities' as appears in the definition are derived from or incurred on the transaction of loan in any form, such as 'advance', 'debt', 'cash loan', 'over draft' etc. Any other sorts of loan not covered by the definition of loan (ঋণ) under section 2(Ga) of the Ain cannot be realised under the Ain. Nevertheless, it has already been found that there was no transaction of loan between the bank and petitioner. The suit is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court established under the Ain, 2003. .....Kazi Md Mofizur Rahman vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 24 BLC 431

ধারা ২(গ)— ‘সম্ভাব্য’ ও ‘অন্যকোনো দায়’ শব্দগুলি সংজ্ঞায় বিদ্যমান যার উৎপত্তি বা জন্ম ঋণের যেকোনো লেনদেন ধরন যেমন, ‘অগ্রিম’, ‘নগদ ঋণ’ ওভার ড্রাফট’ প্রভৃতি শব্দ হতে। যেকোনো প্রকার ঋণ, আইনের ২(গ) ধারার ঋণের আওতাভূক্ত নয় বিধায় এই আইনের অধীন আদায় করা যাবে না। তা সত্তে¡ও এটা প্রমাণীত যে, ব্যাংক ও পিটিশনারের মধ্যে কোনো লেনদেন ছিল না। যা ২০০৩ সালের আইনের অধীন প্রতিষ্ঠিত আদালতে এখতিয়ারের বাইরে।.....Kazi Md Mofizur Rahman vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 24 BLC 431

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

Section 2(Ga) (2) and 2(Ga)(3)— Whether the excess of profit allegedly withdrawn fraudulently against MTDR accounts by the petitioner in collusion with the defendant No. 2, a junior officer of the Bank can be treated as loan and realised through the Court under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.
The High Court Division noticed that the suit has been filed for realisation of the excess profit fraudulently withdrawn by the petitioner in collusion with the defendant No. 2, a junior officer of the bank against his MTDR accounts along with profit/compensation thereon. Therefore, admittedly, the petitioner did not receive any loan from the bank, which is regulated in accordance with the Islamic Shariah inasmuch as the bank did not invest nor did grant any financial favour or facilities to the petitioner; rather the petitioner invested certain amounts of money through the said Mudaraba Term Deposit Receipt (MTDR) accounts maintained with the bank for profit. Since the bank did not invest nor did grant any financial favour or facilities to the petitioner, the excess profit allegedly withdrawn by the petitioner from his MTDR accounts does not attract the clause ‘ইসলামী শরীয়া মোতাবেক পরিচালিত আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠান কর্তৃক বিনিয়োগকৃত অর্থ বা অন্য যে কোন আর্থিক আনুকূল্য বা সুযোগ-সুবিধা, যে নামেই অভিহিত হউক না কেন of section 2(Ga)(1) or the clause ‘ইসলামী শরীয়া অনুযায়ী পরিচালিত আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠান কর্তৃক বিনিয়োগকৃত অর্থ এর উপর বৈধভাবে আরোপিত সুদ, দন্ড সুদ বা মুনাফা বা ভাড়া’ of section 2(Ga)(4) of the Ain. Neither the remaining parts of sections 2(Ga)(1) and 2(Ga)(4) nor sections 2(Ga) (2) and 2(Ga)(3) of the Ain relate to the transaction under the MTDR scheme. Accordingly, there was no transaction of loan between the respondent bank and petitioner. .....Kazi Mohammad Mofizur Rahman -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and others (Spl. Original) 15 ALR (HCD) 243-257

Section 2— Since no property is mortgaged by the principal debtor, the property mortgaged to the Bank by the judgment-debtor is to be sold in auction first and the decree would be transferred in favour of the mortgagor and he may execute the decree against the principal debtor in view of section 6(5) of the Ain. .....Nazim Uddin (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 24 BLC 732

Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6— It appears from the specific provisions of the said Ain, in particular section 3, that the provisions of the said Ain have been given overriding effect over any other provisions of law under any other Act. Under section 4 of the said Ain, some Courts, being Artha Rin Adalats, were established and, by virtue of section 5, the exclusive jurisdiction has been given to the said Adalats for adjudication of cases to be filed by the financial institutions relating to realization of loan. Since, admittedly, the plaintiff bank is a bank established under the Bank Company Act, 1991 and by virtue of Clause (Ka) of section 2 of the said Ain it is included in the definition of financial institution', the natural conclusion is that if it wants to realize any loan amount by filing any suit, it must go before the Artha Rin Adalat established under the said Ain. Not only that, the said suit has to be filed in accordance with the provisions under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. Upon mere reading of the plaint as well as the deposition of the sole witness as examined by the plaintiff and the specific prayers made by the plaintiff in the plaint, it is crystal clear that this is a case for realization of loan amount against the defendant Nos. 1-6. In view of above, this Court is of the view that the issue No. 1 should be determined against the plaintiff. This means, this Suit is not maintainable before this Admiralty Court and is liable to be dismissed. However, if the plaintiff desires, and if the law permits, it is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for seeking redress as sought in the instant suit. .....Premier Bank Limited vs FV Rainbow-1 (Admiralty Jurisdiction) 23 BLC 727

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.

Section 2(Ka)(4)—On the question of removal the name of Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation from the definition clause of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, it is found that the Appellate Division pronounced the judgment on 22-7-1996 i.e. long before coming into force of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. It is very unfortunate that Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs still did not act as per the decision of 49 DLR (AD) 80 and 47 DLR 158 thereby causes hindrance in the matter of administration of justice. It is expected that in no time Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs will act as per the aforesaid decisions and delete House Building Finance Corporation from section 2 Ka(4) of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. .....Begum Shirin Akhtar vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation, 16 BLC 1.

Section 2(Ka)(4)—Appeal shall lie both against the decree or order passed by the Adalat in a proceeding and the impugned order has been passed in execution proceeding by the Adalat; appeal could have been brought by the aggrieved party and there is no scope for challenging the same invoking the writ jurisdiction. .....Rupali Bank Limited Dhaka vs Artha Rin Adalat Dhaka, 21 BLC 136

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

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.

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

Section 2(Ga)—Under a Lease Agreement if any outstanding remains due to the non-payment of rent, there will be rent liability and not loan liability and thus in this case, lease will not be considered as a Rin and the Artha Rin Adalat does not have the appropriate jurisdiction to decide matter. .....Anudip Autos Ltd vs Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, 19 BLC 610.

Section 2(Ga)—The money was disbursed and they are to return the money which they were paying but failed. In case it is lease agreement then the Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. .....Anudip Autos Ltd vs Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, 19 BLC 610.

Section 2(2)-2(6)— In absence of any property exclusively mortgaged by the principal debtor in favour of the Bank, the ejmali property mortgaged by the principal borrower and others jointly is to be sold to realize the decretal amount. The Adalat was bound to sell ejmali property jointly mortgaged by the principal borrower and others in absence of any other property exclusively mortgaged by the principal debtor. .....Pubali Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Cox's Bazar (Spl Original), 25 BLC 61

Section 2—After enactment of the Act of 2003 all the execution cases arising out of the decree relates to a financial institution are liable to be transferred to the Artha Rin Adalat. The entire proceeding is illegal and without lawful authority. .....Shamsul Islam (Md) vs Sonali Bank 66 DLR 222.

Section 2—The Court is definitely permitted to look at the definition of loan in the Ain when the Bank Company Act is silent on the definition of loan. .....IFIC Bank Ltd vs Beximco Holdings Ltd. 57 DLR 154.

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.

Section 2—Bangladesh Krishi Bank is a juristic person that can sue and be sued in its name and as such in absence of Bangladesh Krishi Bank as defendant the suit against its employee is not maintainable. .....Manager, Bangladesh Krishi Bank va Nurul Islam, 20 BLD 179=52 DLR 434.

By no means, we can treat a Judgment Debtor as an Accused person or criminal suspect:
It is crystal clear that the legislature has incorporated this provision in the statute to compel a judgment debtor to repay decretal dues and so, the Adalat can pass any term of civil detention to a Judgment Debtor not more than 6(six) months. But certainly, the order of civil detention is not a sentence which is defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition, page 1393 as “the judgment that a court formally pronounces after finding a criminal defendant guilty” Or “a punishment imposed on a criminal wrongdoer”. From all the legal provisions of the Act, 2003 as referred to by the learned Deputy Attorney General (DAG) viz sections 2(kha), 4(1), 4(4), 5(2), 6(1) and 26 of the Act, 2003 it appears that the Artha Rin Adalat adjudicated the artha rin suit as a civil dispute by a civil Court following the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Although, in sections 6(1) and 26 of the Act, 2003 it has been provided that the Code (CPC) shall be applied subject to not being inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, 2003, but the provisions of the Act, 2003 are also similar and supplementary to the provisions of the Code (CPC). Further, after adjudication of the suit, the petitioner has been determined as a Judgment Debtor which is substantially different from the term of an Accused person in a criminal case. Therefore, by no means, we can treat a Judgment Debtor as an Accused person or criminal suspect. There must have distinction between theAccused in a criminal case and the Judgment Debtor in a civil suit. ...Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20

ধারা ২(খ), ৪(৪), ৫(২), ৬(১) ও ২৬— কোনোভাবেই আমরা দায়িককে অভিযুক্ত সন্দেহভাজন অপরাধী হিসাবে সম্বোধন করতে পারি না। এটা পানির মতো স্বচ্ছ যে, বিধানটি আইনে যুক্ত করার উদ্দেশ্যে ছিল দায়িককে ঋণের অর্থ পরিশোধে বাধ্য করা এবং আদালতকে অনধিক ৬ মাসের আটকাদেশ প্রদানের ক্ষমতা প্রদান। ব্লাক ল ডিকশনারি, ৮ম সংস্করণের ১৩৯৩নং পাতায় সিভিল আটকাদেশকে শাস্তি হিসাবে সংজ্ঞায়িত করা হয়নি। কারণ আদালতে দোষ প্রমাণিত হওয়ার পর আনুষ্ঠানিকভাবে দোষী ব্যক্তি বা অপরাধীর বিরুদ্ধে দন্ডাদেশ দিয়ে থাকে। বিজ্ঞ যুগ্ম অ্যাটর্নী জেনারেল (ডিএডি) কর্তৃক উল্লেখিত ২০০৩ সালের আইনের ২(খ), ৪(৪), ৫(২), ৬(১) ও ২৬ ধারা হতে প্রতীয়মান হয় যে, অর্থঋণ আদালত অর্থঋণের মামলাটি সিভিল মামলা হিসাবে দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধি অনুসরণ করে নিষ্পত্তি করেছে। যদিও ২০০৩ সালের আইনের ৬(১) ও ২৬ ধারায় উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে, দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধি ২০০৩ সালের আইনের সাথে সঙ্গতি রেখে প্রয়োগ করতে হবে। কিন্তু ২০০৩ সালের বিধান দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধির সঙ্গে সাদৃশ্যপূর্ন এবং দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধির সম্পূরক। আবার মামলা নিষ্পত্তির পর পিটিশনারকে দায়িক হিসাবে চিহ্নিত করা হয়েছে যা ফৌজদারি মামলার অভিযুক্ত ব্যক্তি থেকে ভিন্ন বা আলাদা। ফলে এটা প্রমাণিত যে, দেওয়ানি মামলার দায়িক এবং ফৌজদারি মামলার অভিযুক্তের মধ্যে বিস্তর পার্থক্য বিদ্যমান। ...Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 ....View Full Judgment

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.

Section 2—To attract the jurisdiction of the Artha Rin Adalat the plaintiff must be a financial institution as contemplated under section 2 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain because it is only such a financial institution which is entitled to a suit before the Adalat for realisation of any advance made to any party as a loan. The Artha Rin Adalat is a Civil Court of defined nature and limited jurisdiction and it does not enjoy all the powers of the Code of Civil Procedure, section 151— Artha Rin has wrongly assumed jurisdiction and is illegally proceeded with a suit—The High Court Division may act under section 151 CPC. .....Kazi Jawaherul Islam vs Standard Co-operative Credit Society Limited., 18 BLD 310 = 50 DLR 333.

Sections 2(Kha) and 5—Artha Rin Adalat only deals with the realisation of loan money—Artha Rin Adalat has committed a serious illegality in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner has already obtained the amount by practising fraud, forgery and in a deceitful manner when a criminal case was in progress and the petitioner was in jail, hajat, the Artha Rin Adalat should not have entertained such suit without any clear materials that this money in question did constitute a loan money. .....Harunur Rashid vs Subordinate Judge, Bogra 50 DLR 170.

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.

Sections 2(Kha) and 5(1)—This Court established under a special Law cannot travel beyond the parameter set by the Act itself to adjudicate the claim of any claimant who does not come within the definition of financial institution to realise any claim which is not a debt within the meaning of the Act. .....Pubali Bank Ltd vs Md Mamunur Rahman, 54 DLR 458

Sections 2 (Kha) and 5(1)—Jurisdiction of Artha Rin Adalat was created with particular objective, mainly for recovery of bank dues. To achieve the purpose, Artha Rin Adalat was made deemed to be a civil court but not a full-fledged civil court with all powers and jurisdiction of a civil Court. It is a civil Court of defined and limited jurisdiction. .....Al Baraka Bank Bangladesh Ltd. vs Rina Alam, 56 DLR 588.

Section 2(Ga)—"The definition clearly indicates that any amount taken from the condition of repayment in whatever name this may be termed comes within the definition of ‘ঋণ’ .....Alco Hygienic Products Ltd. vs. Islami Bank 47 Ltd, 47 DLR 264.

Section 2(Ga)—The suit has been filed not for realization of any loan money from the who was admittedly not a loanee, but he misappropriated the bank money. By no stretch of imagination the suit comes within the provision of Artha Rin Ain. .....Agrani Bank, Janna Branch, Manikganj vs. AFM Enamul Haq, 50 DLR 173.

Section 2(Ga)—Sonali Bank disputed the issuance of LC in question making the L/C a disputed question of fact which cannot be resolved in writ petition rather such disputed question can only be determined by adducing evidence in a civil Court. .....Sonali Bank Limited vs Bangladesh, 68 DLR 545

Section 2(Ga)(4)—The rate of interest is subject to control or review by the central bank of the country to ensure that it is justified by the forces of demand and to provide healthy competitiveness amongst the banks and the financial institutions. The mechanism of money market which is controlling the banks and the financial institutions are also subject to payment of compound interest to the respective depositors. All these are there to ensure protection to the borrowers as they desire and deserve and at the same time to achieve and maximise social welfare and basic values of life. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that inclusion of "interest" in section 2(Ga)4) is against the spirit of Articles 8(1) and 20(2) of the Constitution. .....Angels Corporation (Pvt) Ltd vs Bangladesh, 59 DLR 601.

Sections 2(Ga)(4) and 50(1)—In pursuance of section 2(ga)(4) as well as section 50(1) of the Ain the legislature has given clear mandate enabling the respondent bank to claim interest forming part of the principal amount provided it is agreed in the contract of loan. In recovering "interest" the respondent Bank does not act contrary to the principles of social and economic justice as enshrined under Article 8(1) of the Constitution. .....Angels Corporation (Pvt) Ltd vs Bangladesh 59 DLR 601.

Since the word "Ifllffij" (directly) has been used in section 34(10) of the Ain, it cannot be inter­preted that prior show cause notice is necessary as the meaning of section 34(10) would be nugatory is such a case. Thus, the provisions of section 51 and Order XXI, rule 37 of the Code are in conflict with the provisions of section 34(1)(9) (10) of the Ain. Under section 26 of the Ain the provision of the Code is applicable so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Ain which includes the provisions of section 34 of the Ain. Moreover, under section 30 of the Ain special provision has been made for publishing notice after filing of the execution case undtv rrrUun circumstances. From the sub-sections (9) and (10) of section 34 of the Ain, there is nothing to show that there is any scope of issuing any show cause notice before issuing warrant of arrest rather it appears that warrant of arrest may be issued directly. What is not in the law itself, cannot be imported in the law by way of interpretation. Manik K Bhattacherjee vs Artha Rin Adalat 16 BLC 195.

Section 3— Whether Artharin Ain is a special law?— Section 3 of the Artharin Ain unambiguously heralds that notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in any Act of Parliament, the provisions of the Artharin Ain shall be applied; meaning that in applying the provisions of Artharin Ain if any law appears to be inconsistent with the provisions of Artharin Ain, the provisions of that law shall be ignored. …..Mr. A.N. Sharfuddin and another -Vs.- Ornate Services Limited and others (St. Original) 28 ALR (HCD) 149

ধারা ৩— অর্থঋণ আইন বিশেষ আইন কিনা?- অর্থঋণ আইনের ৩ ধারায় দ্ব্যর্থহীনভাবে বলা হয়েছে, সংসদের অন্যকোনো আইনে বিপরীত যাই থাকুক না কেন, অর্থঋণ আইনের বিধানাবলী প্রযোজ্য হবে অর্থ্যাৎ অর্থঋণ আইনের বিধান প্রয়োগের ক্ষেত্রে অন্যকোনো আইন এই আইনের বিধানের সাথে অসামঞ্জস্যপূর্ণ হলে ঐ আইনের বিধানগুলি পরিহার করতে হবে।…..Mr. A.N. Sharfuddin and another -Vs.- Ornate Services Limited and others (St. Original) 28 ALR (HCD) 149

Sections 3, 4 and 5— In view of the provisions of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 making it mandatory for the financial institutions and banks to file cases for realization of loan before the Artha Rin Adalat constituted under the said Ain, and as such the Admiralty suit is not maintainable. …..Premier Bank Limited -Vs.- F.V. Rainbow-1 and others. (Civil) 11 ALR (HCD) 128-132

ধারা ৩, ৪, ও ৫— অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর বিধানের পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠান এবং ব্যাংক ঋণের অর্থ আদায়ের জন্য মামলা এই আইনের অধীনে দায়ের করার বাধ্যবাধকতা আরোপ করেছে। কিন্তু অ্যাডমিরালটি স্যুট এই আইনের অধীন দায়েরযোগ্য নয়। …..Premier Bank Limited -Vs.- F.V. Rainbow-1 and others. (Civil) 11 ALR (HCD) 128-132

Section 3— By non-obstantive clause the jurisdiction of all laws have been crusted in a dispute regarding loan recovery by bank as per the provisions of section 3 of the Ain. Any loan recovery shall only be done by invoking the provisions of Ain because of the non-substantive clause and the nature of the law. .....City Bank Limited vs Valentine Sweaters Limited 26 BLC 271.

Section 3—Artha Rin Adalat Ain being a special law is directed towards special objects, special measure i.e. speedy realization of the loan money from the borrower and gives rise to special cause of action and self provides for the method of enforcement of rights conferred by that Act. .....Rex Apparels (Private) Limited vs Bangladesh, 21 BLC 395.

Sections 3, 26 and 34—The provision of warrant of arrest has been specifically incorporated by the legislature in order to ensure speedy recovery of long standing dues which remained unadjusted by the loan defaulters using the language ‘ডিক্রির টাকা পরিশোধে বাধ্য করার প্রয়াস হিসেবে’ With the object to circumscribe said defaulted culture of the borrowers some deterrent provisions like sections 19, 41, 42, 44, including 34, have been incorporated in the Act Vill of 2003 which is absolutely within the wisdom and domain of the legislature. .....ABM Shirajum Monir vs Subordinate Judge, 14 BLC 716.

Sections 3, 26, 30 and 34—Since the word "সরাসরি" (directly) has been used in section 34(10) of the Ain, it cannot be interpreted that prior show cause notice is necessary as the meaning of section 34(10) would be nugatory is such a case. Thus, the provisions of section 51 and Order XXI, rule 37 of the Code are in conflict with the provisions of section 34(1)(9)(10) of the Ain. Under section 26 of the Ain the provision of the Code is applicable so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Ain which includes the provisions of section 34 of the Ain. Moreover, under section 30 of the Ain special provision has been made for publishing notice after filing of the execution case under certain circumstances. From the sub-sections (9) and (10) of section 34 of the Ain, there is nothing to show that there is any scope of issuing any show cause notice before issuing warrant of arrest rather it appears that warrant of arrest may be issued directly. What is not in the law itself, cannot be imported in the law by way of interpretation. .....Manik K Bhattacharjee vs Artha Rin Adalat 16 BLC 195.

Sections 3, 26, 30 and 34—It cannot be said that Order XXI, rule 37 of the Code is identical with the provision laid down in section 34 of the Ain of 2003. Moreover, the notice as required under Order XXI, rule 37 of the Code is also not indispensable, rather it was followed by a proviso where the Court preserved the power not to issue such notice if it comes within the knowledge that in order to cause delay the judgment-debtor has been adopting dilatory tactics. Moreso, the said provision stands for money decree passed in a Money Suit but not in a suit for recovery of bank loan which may also be called a money decree for which special law exists for the said purpose e.g. Act VIII of 2003. Accordingly, the said provision of the Code as to issuance of show cause notice cannot be allowed to be implemented alone leaving the proviso laid down therein in order to issue a warrant of arrest against the judgment-debtor under section 34(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. .....ABM Shirajum Monir vs Subordinate Judge, 14 BLC 716.

Section 3—The "deeming clause"—Special forum—In enacting special statutes legislature employs deeming clause as a legal fiction. The function of the court is to find out the limitation of this legal fiction—Artha Rin Adalat—Special Forum——The nature and function of Artha Rin Adalat coupled with power and authority clearly indicate that it is a special forum of limited jurisdiction and not an ordinary civil court. .....Sultan Alam @SA Bada Vs. Rupali Bank, 1994 BLD 295 : 46 DLR 292.

Sections 3 and 5(1)—A financial institution may institute a suit in connection with realization 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 realization of loan provided in the 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 Ain or take recourse to the special procedure provided in the relevant law. .....Dr Md Asadullah vs Sonali Bank Ltd, 62 DLR 474.

Section 3—The provisions of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 have given superiority over any other law as to any loan from any scheduled Bank. .....Nure Alam Siddique (Tulu) vs State (Criminal) 71 DLR 570

Sections 3, 5, 20 and 26— Sections 3 and 26 of the Ain have given overriding effect of the provisions of the Ain in case of inconsistency with any other law or provisions of the Code. Section 20 of the Ain has made any claims un-entertainable by any court, which has been lodged ignoring provisions of the Ain which, under section 5, has given exclusive jurisdiction to the Adalat to entertain all suits regarding realisation of loans. .....Shirajul Islam Mollah vs Bangladesh Bank (Civil) 73 DLR 554

The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 is a special law and Section 3 of the said Ain has given the overriding effect to the provisions of the said Ain irrespective of any contrary provisions in any other law. Therefore, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or any other Act shall have to be read subject to the provisions of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and, in case of any clash between the provisions of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain and any other law, the provisions of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain shall prevail.
The High Court Division is of the view that no settlement reached between the petitioner and the bank during pendency of writ petition, or any time after such sale, can deprive the auction purchaser of his legal right to own and have possession of the said property as the title of the said property has already been conferred in his favour. Therefore, whatever settlement has been reached between the petitioner and respondent bank, as reflected in bank’s letter dated 23.3.2014 (Annexure-I1 to the supplementary-affidavit of the petitioner dated 19.02.2018), that does not in any way cast any doubt on the entitlement of respondent No. 6 to own and possess the said property in accordance with law. However, since the petitioners have tried to settle the dispute upon payment of entire liability after privately selling another mortgaged property as mentioned in Schedule ‘Ga’ of the decree and execution case, they are at liberty to conclude such settlement in accordance with law. However, under no circumstances, by such settlement, the sale in favour of respondent No. 6 can be questioned. In view of above, since the High Court Division does not find any merit in the Rule, the same should be discharged. In the result, the Rule is discharged. S.K. Amir Hossain and another. -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others. (Spl. Original) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 193 ....View Full Judgment

Section 4(2)(3)—The actions of the Government are made in the name of the President and notwithstanding the provision authorising the Goverment to make appointment of the learned Judges of the Adalat and constitute the said Court, the Government have taken the decision under order of the President and there is nothing wrong in the impugned legislation and that the Artha Rin Adalat has been legally constituted and the suit has been legally proceeded with. .....ARA Jute Mills Limited vs. Janata Bank, 3 ADC (2006) 684=58 DLR (AD) 126.

ধারা ৪(২)(৩)— সরকারের কার্যাবলি রাষ্ট্রপতির নামে গৃহীত হয়। আদালতের বিজ্ঞ বিচারকদের নিয়োগ এবং আদালত গঠনের জন্য ক্ষমতার বিধান থাকা সত্ত্বেও সরকার রাষ্ট্রপতির আদেশের অধীনে সিদ্ধান্ত নিয়েছে এবং তর্কিত আইনে কোনো ভুল নেই এবং অর্থঋণ আদালত বৈধভাবে গঠিত হয়েছে এবং মামলাটি বৈধভাবে অগ্রসর হয়েছে। .....ARA Jute Mills Limited vs. Janata Bank, 3 ADC (2006) 684=58 DLR (AD) 126.

Section 4(3)(5)—About the mode of consultation with the Supreme Court, there is nothing clearly mentioned in sub-section (5) of section 4 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. Since in the Notification dated 1-1-2004, there is clear indication that consultation has taken place with the Supreme Court prior to the transfer and appointment of the named presiding Judges to the Artha Rin Adalats, the Jurisdiction of the Adalats cannot be questioned, as the suits were filed in the respective Adalats after the said notification was issued the proceeding are valid in law. Therefore, there is no legal flaw or defect in the appointment of the Judges of the Artha Rin Adalat and the proceedings of the suit are competent under the law. .....Idris Miah (Md) vs Bangladesh, 10 BLC 728

ধারা ৪(৩)ও (৫)— সুপ্রীম কোর্টের সঙ্গে পরামর্শ করার বিষয়ে অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ৪(৫) ধারায় স্পষ্টভাবে কিছু উল্লেখ করা হয়নি। তবে ০১.০১.২০০৪ খ্রি. তারিখের বিজ্ঞপ্তিতে সুস্পষ্টভাবে উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে, অর্থঋণ আদালতের প্রধান বিচারকের বদলী ও নিয়োগের ক্ষেত্রে সুপ্রীম কোর্টের সঙ্গে পরামর্শ করতে হবে এবং বিজ্ঞপ্তির পর দায়েরকৃত মামলা আইনগতভাবে বৈধ এবং আদালতের এখতিয়ারের বিষয়ে কোনো প্রশ্ন উত্থাপন করা যাবে না। ফলে অর্থঋণ আদালতের বিচারক নিয়োগের ত্রুটি-বিচ্যুতি নেই এবং মামলার বিচার প্রক্রিয়া আইনত বৈধ। .....Idris Miah (Md) vs Bangladesh, 10 BLC 728

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.

Sections 4(6) and 19(6)—The expression "হলফনামাযুক্ত আরজি বা জবাব’’ incorporated in section 6(4) of the Ain, 2003 has been used in the context of ‘‘কোন মামলা একতরফাসূত্রে বা তাৎক্ষণিক নিষ্পত্তি ক্ষেত্রে" when the word ‘‘বা’’ (or) would be readas the disjunctive one, an unworkable situation would arise for the Adalat. Because, in that event the Adalat shall have to consider either the plaint only or the written statement only in the backdrop of impossibility of disposal of a suit solely on the basis of written statement. Disposal of a suit solely based on the written statement will render the provisions of section 19(6) of the Ain, 2003 nugatory. If the word ‘‘বা’’ (or) employed in section 6(4) of the Ain, 2003 is read as a conjunctive word in an exparte disposal situation, it will mean that even if the defendant is absent, the Adalat must consider both the plaint and written statement making the provisions of section 19(1) of the Ain 2003 redundant, for, this section requires exparte disposal (একতরফাসূত্রে) in the absence of defendant. .....Osman Gazi Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat, 21 BLC 322.

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.

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.

Artha Rin Adalat can only be constituted by Joint District Judge alone. If due to illness or for any other reason or the court is in vacation the Adalat cannot function with its regular work the District Judge will appoint temporarily a Joint District Judge to continue function of Artha Rin Adalat. For the purpose of functioning of Adalat to be more particular to hold the trial jurisdiction lies with the Joint District Judge. Section 41 of Ain clearly says that the District Judge and the Additional District Judge are the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Joint District Judge in the capacity of Artha Rin Adalat Judge. .....Sheikh Md Rafiqul Islam (Babul) vs Manager, Uttara Bank Limited, 66 DLR 131.

From the scheme of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and the provisions of Section 4 of the Ain it is clear that the only persons legally competent to be appointed to act as Judges of the Artha Rin Adalat are Joint District Judges. In view of Section 4 (7) of the Ain even those who are per-forming the functions of Judges-in-Charge of the Artha Rin Adalat shall have to be appointed from amongst the Joint District Judges. Therefore, the High Court Division rightly set aside those orders which were passed by the learned Judge-in-Charge who was holding the rank of Additional District Judge but part of the impugned Order No. 1 dated 23.01.2008 relating to the registration of the suit was kept valid as that was an administrative order. The learned Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to pass any judicial order in Artha Rin Suit in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. .....One Bank Ltd. Vs. Chaya Developer (Pvt.) Ltd. & antr., (Civil) 4LNJ 292

The learned Additional District Judge cannot be a Judge of Artha Rin Adalat as per provisions of Sub-Sections (4) and (7) of Section 4 of the said Ain, 2003. In view of the above observations and findings we are of the view that the impugned 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. & antr., (Civil), 4LNJ 292

Regarding the appointment of Judges of the Artha Rin Adalat, Section 4(5) of the Ain envis-ages that the Government shall in consultation with the Supreme Court, appoint Judges of the Artha Rin Adalats from amongst the Joint District Judges and the Joint District Judges appointed in the aforesaid manner shall not be able to adjudicate any other civil or criminal cases except the Artha Rin Suit. Section 4(7) of the Ain provides that if a Judge of the Artha Rin Adalat has temporarily been unable to perform his duty owing to leave, illness or any other rea-son then the District Judge may appoint a Joint District Judge under his jurisdiction and control to perform the functions and duties of a Judge of Artha Rin Adalat for the time being on full time basis or in addition to his own duties. .....One Bank Ltd. Vs. Chaya Developer (Pvt.) Ltd. & antr., (Civil) 4LNJ 292

The Bank filed suit for recovery of loan money but did not file any mortgage suit under section 5(2) of the Ain. If the Bank or financial institute wishes to foreclose down the right of redemption of the mortgagor, then it has to file mortgage suit and in that case the decree awarded by the Adalat shall be preliminary decree and in all other cases, the decree awarded by the Court in a suit filed for recovery of loan money shall be the final decree. A suit to obtain a decree that a mortgagor shall be absolutely debarred from his right to redeem the mortgaged property is called a suit for foreclosure. .....City Bank Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat 26 BLC 601.

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

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.

The decree for realisation of money was passed on 10-3-2003 as per provision of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990. The Execution Case No. 30 of 2004 was filed when the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 came into effect. From saving clause of section 60(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 it appears that the proceeding which was filed under the Artha Rin Ain 1990 but proceeded when the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 came into force, shall proceedas per provision of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 as far as it practical. So, from this provision it appears that the execution case has been proceeding in accordance with law. .....Shahjahan Mia (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh, 12 BLC 742.

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

Since the Adalat in question did not have jurisdiction to entertain or to proceed with the application the whole proceeding before the Adalat were entertained and continued before the Adalat without jurisdiction and, as such, the same are nullity in the eye of law. .....Abdul Mukid (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat Khulna, 66 DLR 211.

Bank guarantee—Bank undertaking to pay on the failure of the contractor to perform his contract—The action against the guarantor not dependent on the action against the contractor. The bank guarantee is a contract distinct and separate from the contract for the performance of which the guarantee is given. Place of swing discussed. .....Janata Bank Vs. Shampur Sugar Mills Ltd, 1 BLD (1981) 248

Only those suits which are concerned with the realisation of as "Loan' 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 Lad vs Agrani Bank 46 DLR (AD) 174; 48 DLR 57 : Harunar Rashid vs Subordinate Judge,Bogra, 50 DLR 170.

Artha Rin Adalat Ain is meant for realisation of any loan advanced to any party by the financial institution including the present plaintiff Bank. In the lastart case the suit has been filed not for realisation of any loan money from the defendant who was admittedly not a loance but he misappropriated the banks money. By no stretch of imagination the suit comes within the provision of Artha Rin Adalat Ain. .....Agrani Bank vs AFM Emamul Huq, 50 DLR 173.

Since it is found that, amount claimed by the plaintiff is not loan within the meaning of section 2(kha) of the Act inspite of the fact that the plaintiff is a financial institution within the meaning of section 2(Ka) of the said Act Artha Rin Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of sach a suit. .....Eastern Bank Limited vs Subordinate Judge, 49 DLR 531.

It is only the financial institutions as defined in section 2(ka) which are entitled to institute a case in the Artha Rin Adalat for recovery of loan as defined in section 2(kha) of the Act and no other person or institution is authorised to file a case before the Artha Rin Adalat. .....Sonali Bank vs Ali Tannery Lid, 48 DLR 57.

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.

The nature and function of Artha Rin Adalat coupled with power and authority clearly indicate that it is a special forum of limited jurisdiction and not an ordinary civil court. .....Sultan Alam @ SA Badal vs Rupali Bank 46 DLR 292.

Sections 5 and 2(Kha)—Artha Rin Adalat only deals with the realisation of loan money—Artha Rin Adalat has committed a serious illegality in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner has already obtained the amount by practising fraud, forgery and in a deceitful manner when a criminal case was in progress and the petitioner was in jail, hajat, the Artha Rin Adalat should not have entertained such suit without any clear materials that this money in question did constitute a loan money. .....Harunur Rashid vs Subordinate Judge, Bogra, 50 DLR 170.

Once a case has already been brought under Article 27 of the PO No. 7 of 1973 there automatically arises a bar to transfer the proceedings to the Artha Rin Adalat under the garb of a suit. Proceedings initiated under PO 7 of 1973 at all times remain special in their nature and format and cannot midway, by the device of a transfer to an Artha Rin Adalat, automatically acquire the character and nature of a suit which the Artha Rin Adalat is uniquely equipped to proceed with under section 5(1) of the Act. .....Ayub Hossain (Md) vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh 66 DLR 597.

A financial institution may institute a suit in connection with realization 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 realization of loan provided in law by which the financial institution is established will not be affected. The law 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." .....Dr Md Asadullah vs Sonali Bank Ltd, 62 DLR 474.

This Court established under a special Law cannot travel beyond the parameter set by the Act itself to adjudicate the claim of any claimant who does not come within the definition of financial institution to realise any claim which is not a debt within the meaning of the Act. .....Pubali Bank Ltd. vs. Md Mamunur Rahman, 54 DLR 458.

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.

A mere perusal of sub-section (11) of section 5 of the Ain, 2003 along with Rule 1 of Order 34 of the Code, clearly shows that the plaintiff has right to be added as a defendant in the Artha Rin Suit, filed by the Bank as well as the Adalat has ample jurisdiction to add her as defendant, since she has appellant in the mortgage security, moreso, when sub-section (11) of section 5 of the Ain, 2003, keeps an enabling provisions and provisions of Rule (10) of Order 1 of the Code, is not inconsistent with any provisions of the Ain. Rather, as contemplated in sub Rule (2) or Rule (10) of Order 1 of the Code, such addition would be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and to decide the entire question involved in the suit. .....Monowara Haque vs Rowshan Ara Istaque (Civil) 74 DLR 429

Hypothecation is a variant of the system of pledge. Pledge is defined by section 172 of the Contract Act as bailment of goods as security for payment of a debt or performance of a promise. The civil law recognises two kinds of pledge, viz. the "pignus" (pawn) in which possession of goods is actually delivered to the creditor or pawnee and "hypotheca" (hypothecation) where possession of the goods pledged remain with the debtor with the obligation as per contract. Under hypothecation a creditor has a right over the goods belonging to the debtor and such right gives the creditor a power to cause the thing to be sold to recover his dues out of the proceeds. It is also an act of pledging goods as securing for a debt or demand without delivery of possession. Consequence is that although the property remains in possession of the debtor, it cannot be transferred without express consent or permission of the creditor. By hypothecation certain rights in movable property are transferred to the creditor. When the goods are handed over to the creditor by way of security, it becomes a pledge. .....Eastern Bank Ltd vs Sufia Re-Rolling Mills and Steel Ltd, 56 DLR 530.

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.

On meticulous and meaningful reading of the aforesaid provision of the Ain, 2003, it is as clear as day light that the legislature has consciously given option for shopping the forum either to file Artha Rin Suit or Certificate Case for speedy realization of the outstanding amount which does not exceed Tk. 5 lacs. The jurisdiction of the Certificate Officer is in addition but not in derogation to the jurisdiction of the Artha Rin Adalat; therefore, the certificate proceeding does not suffer from jurisdictional defect raised by the petitioner. Consequently, the issue stands decided in the negative. ...Md. Shahin Ikbal Vs. General Certificate Officer & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 168

ধারা ৫(৫)— ২০০৩ সালের আইনের বিধানটি পুঙ্খানুপুংঙ্খ বিশ্লেষণের পর এটা স্পষ্ট হয়েছে যে, ৫ লক্ষ টাকা বকেয়া স্থিতি দ্রুত আদায়ের জন্য আইনপ্রণেতাগন ইচ্ছেকৃতভাবে অর্থঋণ আদালত অথবা সার্টিফিকেট মামলা দায়ের সুযোগ রেখেছেন। সার্টিফিকেট অফিসারের এখতিয়ার অর্থঋণ আদালতের এখতিয়ারের অতিরিক্ত হবে। ফলে সার্টিফিকেট মামলার প্রক্রিয়ায় পিটিশনার উল্লেখিত ক্রটির মাধ্যমে আদালতের এখতিয়ারকে খর্ব করবে না। ফলস্বরূপ বিষয়টি নেতিবাচক সিদ্ধান্তে দাঁড়িয়েছে। ...Md. Shahin Ikbal Vs. General Certificate Officer & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 168 ....View Full Judgment

Limitation for filing appeal—From a reading of the relevant provisions it is manifested that if a suit is a mortgage suit and brought for foreclosure, in that case, the decree pronounced by the Adalat shall be a preliminary decree and the decrees of the Adalat for recovery of loans in other cases are to be treated as final decrees. .....FR Garments (Pvt) Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka, 61 DLR 296.

Against the order of injunction dated 13-3-2007 restraining the defendants from holding AGM and from transferring executive power till disposal of the suit, defendant No. 7 filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 84 of 2007 which was allowed. Against the judgment passed in the Appeal, the plaintiff filed a revisional application before this Court, which issued Rule and stayed the operation of the order passed by the appellate Court in Civil Revision No. 2981 of 2007. The Arbitration Tribunal found that the current Executive Committee of BGMEA had been formed without lawful authority and that since the BGMEA Election had taken place in violation of a Court's order and was illegal, the Executive Committee formed by the Board of Directors pursuant to the BGMEA Election was illegal. This finding is also totally misconceived, because whether the Election had taken place in violation of the Court's order could not be decided by the Tribunal which even did not have the jurisdiction to say that the BGMEA Election had taken place in violation of the Court's order until the violation case is allowed and the suit is decreed. Had there been an order of injunction restraining exclusion of the nominations made by BGMEA from being voters of the FBCCI Election, the Tribunal in that event could exclude the voters of the BGMEA. It is contended that the holding of AGM and handing over executive power were not proper during continuance of the order of stay passed by the High Court Division. .....FR Garments (Pvt) Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka, 61 DLR 223.

Section 5(4) Artha Rin Adalat and section 24 of CPC—General law cannot be tagged and heard with special law. The court below has correctly rejected the application under S. 24 CPC since the case pending in the Artha Rin Adalat can be heard analogously with any other case filed on any other normal court created by the Civil Courts Act. .....Ripan Packaging and Accessories Ltd. vs. Eastern Bank Ltd., 54 DLR 31; 2002 BLD 127.

An aggrieved party i.e. a judgment debtor has only the forum, of appeal when a decree is passed either on contest or ex parte. Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable subject to the provisions of this special law. MAC, Proprietor Mahatabuddin Chowdhury vs Agrani Bank. Thatari Branch, Dhaka,. .....47 DLR 233.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Right of redemption exists unless the mortgaged property is sold on auction or the right is barred by limitation:
It also appears from the record that admittedly, the petitioner-Bank filed Artha Rin Suit for recovery of loan money but did not file any mortgage suit under section 5(2) of the Ain, 2003. If the Bank or financial institute wishes to foreclose down the right of redemption of the mortgagor, then it has to file mortgage suit and in that case the decree awarded by the Adalat shall be preliminary decree and in all other cases, the decree awarded by the Court in a suit filed for recovery of loan money shall be the final decree. A suit to obtain a decree that a mortgagor shall be absolutely debarred from his right to redeem the mortgaged property is called a suit for foreclosure. In this case, the decree holder did not institute any mortgage suit for foreclosure. Right of redemption exists unless the mortgage property is sold on auction in accordance with the Ain, 2003 or barred by the Limitation Act, 1908. …City Bank Ltd Vs. Court of 1st JDJ & Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 217

As soon as auction sale is held in pursuance of the decree passed in a suit for recovery of loan money, the decree shall be final and accordingly, the right of redemption of the mortgage property be extinguished. In the instant case, auction was not held in accordance with law and the mortgage property was not sold on auction, therefore, it cannot be said that the right of redemption of the judgment-debtor has been extinguished. …City Bank Ltd Vs. Court of 1st JDJ & Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 217 ....View Full Judgment

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.

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.

Adalat cannot entertain any execution case to execute the decree in the preliminary form requiring final decree and, as such, continuation of the execution case is unlawful apparent on the face of record without having any legal sanction. Inter­national Tannery vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 17 BLC 380.

There is a specific provision for transfer of the Artha Rin case and it has been specifically provided that the Artha Rin Adalat dealt with the matter in accordance with the Ain, 2003 nor under any other law. Although the District Judge has the jurisdiction to transfer the Artha Rin cases from one Court to another Court of competent jurisdiction not under the Code but under the provisions of Ain, 2003. .....SM Sirajul Islam vs. Janata Bank, WAPDA Branch. 66 DLR 119.

For application of the doctrine of constructive res-judicata the conditions amongst others, the matter be directly and substantially in issue' and 'has been heard and finally decided' appear to be sine qua. .....Eastern Bank Ltd vs Sufia Re-Rolling Mills and Steel Ltd, 56 DLR 530.

In order to bring subsequent suit within the mischief of section 11, first and foremost requirement is that the court in which the former suit was pending and/or decided must be competent to try subsequent suit must be of concurrent jurisdiction both in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction and subject. .....Al Baraka Bank Bangladesh Ltd vs Rina Alam, 56 DLR 588.

In the Artha Rin Suit, the petitioner has been impleaded as the main borrower and the guarantor of the loan in question. Since the petitioner has appeared and submitted a written statement, justice would be done if he is allowed to contest the suit by way of accepting the additional written statement. .....Shafiqul Islam vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 75 DLR 665

The Adalat shall be deemed to be a civil Court and shall have all powers and jurisdiction of a civil Court. Section 6(1) of the Ain, provides that in the proceedings of a trial or disposal of any suit instituted in the Adalat, the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are applicable if it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Ain 2003. .....Nusrat Jahan vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 29 BLC 117.

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

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

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

The provision of Order XXI rule 54 are mandatory - an attachment order must be strictly proved, mere production of order is not sufficient
Industrial promotion and Development Company of Bangladesh (IPDC) is a financial institution who instituted Artha Rin Suit and the appellant-Bank Asia Ltd. impleaded as defendant No.5, who is the separate banking institution and not a borrower, nor a mortgagor, nor a guarantor against the loan availed by the plaintiff IPDC, the suit was decreed in favour of IPDC in which the schedule property has been considered as equitable mortgage- IPDC filed execution case wherein filed an application for attachment and obtained attachment order in execution case- IPDC admitted that the attached property prior mortgage in favour of appellant-Bank Asia Ltd. and Bank Asia Ltd. has not been made a party in the application for attachment filed under Order XXI rule 54 and record shows that IPDC without disclosing the fact of filing Transfer Miscellaneous Case obtained an order of attachment-held; IPDC failed to show any registered or equitable mortgage in its favour; moreover, the documents of title was not in their custody. In para-30 of their plaint they have admitted that there is no equitable mortgage and they do not have the title documents. Even in its application for attachment IPDC gave wrong description of the title deed of the property to be attached. - Non fulfillment of the mandatory provision of law, the order of attachment is illegal. .....Bank Asia Limited Vs. IPDC of Bangladesh 25BLT (HCD)222

IPDC instituted Artha Rin Suit in Prior date but the appellant Bank Asia Ltd. got decree as regards the mortgage property before the IPDC obtained the decree
IPDC prayed for declaration of its priority in its plaint as prayer 'C' but the decree as well as ordering portion of the judgment shows no such prayer has been granted or decreed the suit does not contain any such direction for treating priority of mortgage. - Moreover, since the court has not framed any specific issue on the point of 'Priority of Interest' there was no scope for the court to delivery its decree on that point, and the learned court also did not pass decree on that point, he merely made some vague and misconceived observation on that point which in fact did not affect the right of Bank Asia. - Since Bank Asia Ltd. has got registered mortgage in its favour and IPDC failed to show any prior equitable mortgage in its favour, therefore, priority belongs to Bank Asia Ltd. over the mortgaged land which is 16.5 decimals. - In the instant case we find that though in four/five paragraphs IPDC in their suit brought allegation for getting preference in the suit property over the present appellants but the learned Court below did not frame any issue on this point. Prayer C made for getting priority, the learned Court did not pass any such decree and the suit was dismissed against defendant No.5 i.e. the present appellant. This IPDC did not prefer any appeal against defendant No.5 while the suit against this defenda was dismissed. Though the lonee informed the IPDC that at their peril they will mortgage the property to some other financial institution but no reply received from the IPDC's end. Though IPDC instituted the suit in Prior date but the appellant got decree as regards the mortgage property before the IPDC obtained the decree. -In that view of the matter the instant First Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, without any order as to cost. .....Bank Asia Limited Vs. IPDC of Bangladesh 25 BLT (HCD) 222

Transfer of Property Act [IV of 1882]
Section 60 read with
Artha Rin Adalat Ain [VIII of 2003]
Section 5(4)
Once the mortgaged property is sold in the execution process of a decree before the Artha Rin Adalat, the mortgagor shall lose his right to redeem the mortgaged property irrespective of any provisions in the Transfer of Property Act or any other laws applicable at the relevant time to the contrary.
The High Court Division held that the bank has already sold the said property through auction on the basis of the said certificate and respondent No. 6 has purchased the said property through such auction being the highest bidder therein. Not only that, sale certificate dated 10.09.2009 issued by the bank (Annexure-5 to the supplementary-affidavit of the respondent No. 6) further proves that the sale in favour of the respondent No. 6 through the said auction has in the meantime become final. Therefore, in view of the provisions under sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, the petitioner No. 2-mortgagor’s right to redeem the said mortgaged property as mentioned under ‘Kha’ Schedule has become extinguished with the sale of the said mortgaged property in favour of respondent No. 6 and, accordingly, the petitioner No. 2 has lost its right to redeem the said property for ever. Not only that, under the said provisions, the purchase by the respondent No. 6 has become a legal purchase and the same cannot be questioned under any circumstances in so far as his right to hold and own the said property is concerned. S.K. Amir Hossain and another. -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others. (Spl. Original) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 193 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 5(2) & (3) and 34(1)— Before issuing warrant of arrest there should be at least a single attempt for auction of the mortgage property.
The law enjoins when a decree should be passed in preliminary form before passing of the final decree. The decree in question is a money decree which has been drawn up very much in keeping with the said provision of Ain.
The High Court Division observed that admittedly, as it appears from the order dated 07.02.2007 of respondent No. 1 the Adalat that the Court below in total disregard of section 34(9) of Ain without attempting for any auction sale of the mortgaged property issued the Order of warrant of arrest. The provision is clear that the before issuing warrant of arrest there should be at least a single attempt for auction of the mortgage property. The law is very much settled to that effect. Abdur Razzak -vs- Artha Rin Adalat, 65 DLR (AD) 111, Jahangir Chowdhury (MD) –v- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Chittagong & others 14 MLR (2009) 293 and Arun Kumar Sutradhar & another –v- The Joint District Judge & Another 31 BLD (2011) 81 are the authorities on the point. Secondly, it has been stated in the petition that in violation of Rule 4(1) of Order XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decree was drawn up i.e. to say that there should have been a preliminary decree before final decree. But the argument falls apart as the Ain has specifically made provision in this regard under section 5(2) & (3) of the Ain, 2003. On a plain reading of the said provisions of Ain it is clear that the law enjoins when a decree should be passed in preliminary form before passing of the final decree. The decree in question is a money decree which has been drawn up very much in keeping with the said provision of Ain. Md. .....Monirul Islam -Vs.- Joint District Judge, 1st Court and Artha Rin Adalat, Bhola and others (Spl. Original) 16 ALR (HCD) 69-70

ধারা ৫(২) ও ৩ এবং ৩৪(১)— গ্রেফতারি পরোয়ানা জারির পূর্বে বন্ধকী সম্পত্তির নিলামের চেষ্টা করতে হবে। আইন অনুসারে চূড়ান্ত ডিক্রি দেওয়ার পূর্বে প্রাথমিক ডিক্রি দেওয়া উচিৎ। অর্থ সংক্রান্ত প্রশ্নের মামলার ডিক্রি আইনের বিধানুসারে দিতে হবে। হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ মতে ০৭.০২.২০০৭ তারিখের আদালতের আদেশ হতে প্রতিয়ান হয় যে, ১নং প্রতিবাদী আইনের ৩৪(৯) ধারাকে অমান্য করে বন্ধকী সম্পত্তির নিলাম বিক্রির প্রচেষ্টা ছাড়াই গ্রেফতারের আদেশ জারি করেছে। আইনের স্পষ্ট বিধান হলো গ্রেফতারি পরোয়ানা জারির পূর্বে একবার হলেও বন্ধকী সম্পত্তি বিক্রয়ের চেষ্টা করা উচিৎ। এতদসংক্রান্ত বিষয় Abdur Razzak -vs- Artha Rin Adalat 65 DLR (AD) 111, Jahangir Chowd¬hury (MD) -v- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Chittagong & others 14 MLR (2009) 293 and Arun Kumar Sutradhar & another –v- The Joint District Judge & Another 31 BLD (2011) 81 মামলায় নিষ্পত্তি করা হয়েছে। দ্বিতীয়ত পিটিশনে উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে, দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধির আদেশ ৩৪, বিধি ৪(১) লঙ্ঘন করে প্রাথমিক ডিক্রির পূর্বে চূড়ান্ত ডিক্রি দেওয়া হয়েছে। কিন্তু যুক্তিটি অগ্রাহ্য হয়। কারণ ২০০৩ সালে আইনের ৫(২) ও (৩) ধারায় এতদসংক্রান্ত বিষয় বিশেষভাবে উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে। আইনের বিধান হলো চূড়ান্ত ডিক্রির পূর্বে প্রাথমিক ডিক্রি দিতে হবে। অর্থ সংক্রান্ত মামলার ডিক্রিটি আইনের বিধান পরিপালনপূর্বক গৃহীত। .....Monirul Islam -Vs.- Joint District Judge, 1st Court and Artha Rin Adalat, Bhola and others (Spl. Original) 16 ALR (HCD) 69-70

Banking Companies Act
Section 17 and
Section 5 of the Artharin Adalat Ain:
The provisions of Section 17 of the Banking Companies Act and the provisions of Section 5 of the Artharin Ain provide completely different course of actions for the ‘defaulter loanee’ and ‘defaulter guarantor’. In other words, while the provisions of Section 17 of the Banking Companies Act aims at vacating the directorship of a person of a scheduled Bank, Section 5 of the Artharin strategies about recovery of outstanding loan from the borrower, mortgagor and guarantor. Thus, the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that without going for recovery of loan by invoking the provisions of the Artharin Ain from the Borrower-company at first, commencement of any proceedings under Section 17 of the Banking Companies Act is not legal, appears to me to be completely without any substance. …Md. Shahbuddin Alam Vs. Bangladesh Bank & ors, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 151 ....View Full Judgment

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

The High Court Division held that the Admiralty Suit is nothing but a Money Suit filed by a financial institution and, therefore, in view of specific provisions, namely Section 5 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, Admiralty Court does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the suit at all. …..Premier Bank Limited -Vs.- F.V. Rainbow-1 and others. (Civil) 11 ALR (HCD) 128-132

Artha Rin Adalat Ain and Negotiable Instruments Act are separate branches of law and hold in their respective sphere and do not overlap each other. So, the instant criminal case irrespective of filing a suit under Artha Rin is no bar and for the same the criminal case can not be quashed.
The High Court Division has gone through the writ petition, application and the documents annexed thereto. It has been decided by the Appellate Division in the decision reported in 49 DLR (AD)-132 that Artha Rin Suit is for realization of money and the suit filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is for the offence which has been committed as and when the cheque has been bounced. Two types of cases are quite distinguishable from each other. There is no bar to proceed the criminal case independently. So, the instant criminal case irrespective of filing a suit under Artha Rin is no bar and for the same the criminal case can not be quashed. So, the High Court Division is of the view that the proceedings held by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chittagong is very much lawful and the High Court Division finds no merit in this Rule to quash the proceedings. In the result, the Rule is discharged. .....Mohammad Ali -Vs.- Bangladesh Bank and others (Spl. Original) 26 ALR (HCD) 41

Whether the decree which has been passed by the learned Judge of the Adalat of the Artha Rin Suit is a decree within the definition of foreclosure or not?— The High Court Division held that it is well settled principle of law that the decree execution court who can only to proceed with the execution proceeding in pursuance of the terms and conditions of the decree passed by the learned Judge of the Adalat and there is no scope in the part of the decree execution Adalat to go beyond the decree. After consideration the provision of section 5(3) (4) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 wherein it appears that if any decree passed within the meaning of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 then it shall require to be made final by the Adalat But the decree which comes within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 then it shall become final with the sale of the mortgaged property. Therefore sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Artha Rin Adalat, 2003 makes it clear that save and except the decree passed in a mortgage suit for foreclosure, the decree passed in other mortgaged suit also do not require to make final decree for the purpose of starting the execution case. In the present case though in the plaint, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for foreclosure along with money decree but the Artha Rin Adalat passed a simple money decree only. So, it is not necessary to leave final decree before filing of execution case. The decision as cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioner reported in 17 BLC 380 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In such view of the matter, the High Court Division does not find any substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the decree being passed in preliminary form cannot be put into execution for realization of decreetal amount by sale of the mortgaged property before making the same as final decree. But the High Court Division got substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the respondent Bank. In such view of the matter, the High Court Division does not find any merit in the Rule. In the result, the Rule is discharged. …..Premier Cold Storage Ltd. and another -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 2, Dhaka and another. (Spl. Original) 13 ALR (HCD) 285-290

It is clear from the law that until auction sale and final decree, the right to redeem remains intact. However, that deeming provision of Section 5(4) may very well be argued to meet its limitation in the circumstances envisaged in Section 33(7) given that the fact or concept of on auction sale does not arise in a Section 33(7) scenario. In that scenario, the very issuance of a Section 33(7) Certificate of Title and its registration thereof may be construed as in itself tantamounting to a finality, thereby, extinguishing a right of redemption at the point of such issuance. The right to redeem is in fact a substantive right to property which ought not to be extinguished by mere implication given that Section 33(7) remains silent on the extinguishment of the capacity to redeem inherent in any mortgagor. …..Messrs World Resources Limited -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 3. 3 ALR(2014)(1) 446

Transfer of the Case—Mere rejection of the application for adjournment is no ground for transfer of a case. Defendant petitioner filed Transfer Miscellaneous Case No.165 of 2010 before the District Judge, Dhaka contending that he will not get justice in the case pending before the Artha Rin Adalat, as one officer of the plaintiff -Bank was found in the chamber of the learned Judge. The learned District Judge refused to accept the uncorroboreted apprehension of the petitioner and rejected the petitioners application for transfer of the Artha Rin Adalat suit to another Court. Mere rejection of the application for additional evidence cannot be a ground for transfer of a case u/s 5(10) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003.The uncorroborated assertion of the petitioner that he will not get justice before the learned Artha Rin Adalat as an officer of the Bank was found in the chamber of the learned Judge is not enough for transfer of a Case. …..A. M.Zahidul Alam -VS- Janata Bank 2 ALR (2013)(HCD) 25

Adalat cannot entertain any execution case to execute the decree in the preliminary form requiring final decree and, as such, continuation of the execution case is unlawful apparent on the face of record without having any legal sanction. .....International Tannery vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 17 BLC 380.

Artha Rin Adalat and general Law—revisional jurisdiction— Section 5 of Artha Rin Adalat—Simultaneous trial—Jurisdiction of Artha Rin Adalat. Admittedly the opposite parties are not financial institution. Accordingly, the Artha Rin Adalat, under the provision of Artha Rin Adalat Act cannot legally pass any order as to how the suits filed under the general law would proceed simultaneously or otherwise with suits filed in Artha Rin Adalat under the provision of Artha Rin Adalat, obviously if any such order is passed that can not be said to have been passed under the Artha Rin Adalat Act and that order can not get the benefit of S. 5 of the Artha Rin Adalat. .....United Commercial Bank Lad vt. Freshner Bucket and Redging Industries, 5 MLR (2000) 5=3 BLC 430.

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

House Building Finance Corporation—Art. 27 of P.O. No. 7/1973 self—contained legislation—No obligation to seek redress under Artha Rin Adalat.—One special law cannot over-ride the provision of another special law. .....Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation vs Shahid Sarwar Abul Hossain, 9 BLT (2001) 289 = 6 BLC 751.

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

It appears that, admittedly, defendant no. 3-petitioner was neither a borrower nor guarantor and even nor a mortgagor relating to the loan liability and, therefore, he is not liable for repayment of the loan inasmuch as the petitioner does not come within the purview of sub-section (5) of section 6 of the Ain, 2003, wherein who will be the necessary party in the Artha Rin suit has been provided, and hence the suit ought to have been dismissed as against this defendant no. 3- petitioner. ...Mahbub Ali Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat & ors, (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 102 ....View Full Judgment

From a plain reading of the above quoted provisions, it is clear that all affidavits under Section 6(2) must be declaratory of conversance with and in attestation of the documents submitted in court in support of the claim of the Plaintiff. But in the present case this Court finds that the affidavit attached to the plaint is not so affirmed in accordance with the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Act and as such the ex parte decree passed on the basis of the said affidavit without examination of any witness and formal proof of the documents is found to be wholly inadequate and shorn of all legal substratum. ...Shetu International Pvt. ltd & ors Vs. Artha Rin Adalat-2, Dhaka & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 157

ধারা ৬(২)— আইনের বিধান হলো ৬(২) ধারা অধীন সকল হলফনামা অবশ্যই ঘোষণামূলক বিবৃতি হবে এবং দাবির সমর্থনে সকল দলিলপত্র সত্যায়িত হবে। কিন্তু আদালত মনে করে, বর্তমান মামলায় আরজির সঙ্গে সংযুক্ত হলফনামাটি আইনের ৬(২) ধারার বিধান পরিপালন করা হয়নি এবং হলফনামার ভিত্তিতে প্রদত্ত একতরফা ডিক্রিটি সাক্ষীকে পরীক্ষা ছাড়াই দেওয়া হয়েছে এবং প্রমাণের দলিলাদি সম্পূর্ণ অপর্যাপ্ত এবং আইনগত ভিত্তি ক্রটিপূর্ণ ছিল। ...Shetu International Pvt. ltd & ors Vs. Artha Rin Adalat-2, Dhaka & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 157 ....View Full Judgment

Whether plaint/WS is to be considered by the Adalat in exparte disposals;
Section 6(4) of the Ain, 2003 mandates the Adalat to dispose of an Artharin suit exparte or instantly by simply considering the plaint (prepared under affidavit) or written statement (made with affidavit) and the documents filed therewith, upon treating all of them as substantive evidence and, thus, pleadings with affidavits is the focal-point of this provision and any formal examination of witnesses has got less emphasis in the Ain, 2003. ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140 ....View Full Judgment

Whether the plaint or W/S or both should be considered in ex-parte disposal;
The expression “হলফনামাযুক্ত আরজি বা জবাব” incorporated in Section 6(4) of the Ain, 2003 has been used in the context of “কোন মামলা একতরফাসূত্র বা তাৎক্ষনিক নিষ্পত্তির ক্ষেত্র” ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140 ....View Full Judgment

On the contrary, if the word “বা” (or) employed in Section 6(4) of the Ain, 2003 is read as a conjunctive word in an exparte disposal situation, it will mean that even if the defendant is absent, the Adalat must consider both the plaint and written statement making the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Ain 2003 redundant, for, this Section requires exparte disposal (একতরফাসূত্র) in the absence of defendant. ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140 ....View Full Judgment

The above analysis on the different provisions of the Ain, 2003, which had been carried out in an effort to lay down a workable statutory interpretation, leads us to take a view that the meaning of the expression “হলফনামাযুক্ত আরজি বা জবাব” employed in Section 6(4) of the Ain, 2003 is that the plaint (made with affidavit) is to be considered and where necessary the written statement (made under affidavit) is also to be considered. Hence, in Bangla the following expression “হলফনামাযুক্ত আরজি এবং যথাযথ ক্ষেত্র বিবাদীর হলফনামাযুক্ত জবাব” would sound more appropriate. ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140 ....View Full Judgment

Observations for Law Commissions:
The Commission may make the following proposals to the Legislature;
(1) In order to remove the ambiguity in the phrase “হলফনামাযুক্ত আরজি বা জবাব”, the same may be replaced by the following expression “হলফনামাযুক্ত আরজি এবং যথাযথ ক্ষেত্র বিবাদীর হলফনামাযুক্ত জবাব” with an “Explanation” of the word “যথাযথক্ষেত্রে” to be incorporated underneath of the Sub-Section 6(4) of the Ain, 2003. “যথাযথক্ষেত্রে” means when the Adalat is required to dispose of an Artharin Suit under the provisions of Section 19(6) of the Ain, 2003 in the absence of the plaintiff and defendant, it shall consider the case of the defendant as well, if the written statement (made under affidavit) and any other documents have been filed.
(2) The word ‘একতরফাসূত্রে’, as occurs in section 19(1) of the Ain, 2003 should be given a definition clarifying that when the defendant upon appearing in the suit files written statement and after framing issue does not attend hearing, the Adalat shall consider only the case of the plaintiff and ignore the written statement and issues framed.
(3) Section 19 (1) of the Ain, 2003 should prescribe two more reasons for proceeding with exparte disposal. The first reason should be “ধারা ৭ এর কার্যক্রম সম্পন্ন হওয়ার পর যদি পরবর্তী নির্ধারিত তারিখে বিবাদী না আসে” and, thereafter, the present two reasons would come and, then, the last reason should be incorporated in the following phrase “মামলার যে কোন পর্যায়ে যদি বিবাদী পরপর তিনবার সময়ের আবেদন করে”. ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140 ....View Full Judgment

Section 6(5) of the Act, 2003 incorporates provisions to the effect that in passing the decree, the mortgagor shall be liable for the decretal dues jointly and severally along with the principal borrower and 3rd party guarantor. Thereby, he would become the judgment debtor and execution case shall proceed against all the judgment debtors. Section 34(1) of the Act, 2003 authorises the Adalat to award civil imprisonment in the execution proceeding against all the judgment debtors subject to conditions incorporated in section 34 of the Act in order to compel the judgment debtors to repay the decretal dues. Therefore, these are the provisions to the Adalat to assess the circumstances as to how the decree, if passed, would be realized from the judgment debtors. .....Ali Imam Vs. The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat & ors, (Spl. Original), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 76 ....View Full Judgment

Order of warrant of arrest is not a punishment but only a specific tool for recovery of outstanding dues. The law is well settled which is no longer a res integra. Section 34(9) of Ain enjoins that at least one attempt should be made for auction if there is any mortgaged property before issuance of order of warrant of arrest.
The High Court Division held that the pith and substance of the decisions is that order of warrant of arrest is not a punishment but only a specific tool for recovery of outstanding dues. The law is well settled which is no longer a res integra. Section 34(9) of Ain enjoins that at least one attempt should be made for auction if there is any mortgaged property before issuance of order of warrant of arrest. If no property is mortgaged then section 34(10) comes into play which enjoins:
“যদি কোন কারণে উপ-ধারা (৯) এর অধীন একটিও নিলাম বিক্রয় কার্যক্রম অনুষ্ঠান করা সম্ভব না হয়, তবে সেই ক্ষেত্রে দায়িককে সরাসরি গ্রেফতার ও দেওয়ানী কারাগারে আটক করা যাইবে।”
On perusing the plaint of the case Annexure-‘A’ to the petition High Court Division has found that no property was mortgaged as collateral security with the bank. Therefore, the instant case squarely comes within the mischief of section 34 (10) of the Ain. …..Md. Ali Ajgar -Vs.- Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh & others. (Spl. Original) 13 ALR (HCD) 9-13

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

States that the plaint and the documents must be in support of the affidavit— The Court while deciding a case ex-parte did not explain his satisfaction. Moreover, it has never been stated that the contents made in the plaint and the documents are in consonance and in support with the affidavit. Therefore the affidavit also is not in accordance with law. Since the contents of the affidavit are not specific and not supporting the plaint, the decree as passed is a nullity. …..Mrs. Nahid Anower Khan -Vs .- Artha Rin Adalat 3 ALR(2014)(1) 241

Determination of the necessary party— The Adalat at the time of passing any judgment or finally disposing of the suit should have to take into consideration of the facts as to whether the plaintiff-financial institution made the defendant/defendants in the Artha Rin Suit in view of the statutory provision of sub-section(5) of section 6 of the Ain, 2003 and also to determine whether the defendant in the Artha Rin Suit is a borrower or mortgagor or guarantor for the purpose of fixing the liability of the loan taken by a company, for different business purpose, from the plaintiff-financial institution. When the Adalat passed the impugned judgment beyond the scope of law as provided for in section 6(5) of the Ain, 2003, then it can be said that the same is without jurisdiction. …..Mahbub Ali, Son of late Maharam Ali, of Gusra, Post Office Noapara, Police Station-Raouzan, District- Chittagong.-Vs.-The Judge,Artha Rin Adalat-1, Chittagong and others. 4 ALR 2014(2) 333

Provides that while a decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat is to be executed through execution process, the Adalat will first attract the properties of the main borrower and then will attract properties of the third party mortgagor and the third party guarantor. …..A.B.M. Liton -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh (3 ALR(2014)(1) 238

Sections 6(5) and 34— A guarantor for the loan and his liability arises when the borrower fails to pay the money. In this case the borrower was taken into custody and subsequently released on payment, of certain amount of decretal money. The borrower again showed his willingness to pay the balance money and sought permission to deposit some money covering 25% of the decretal amount, but the Court below refused to accept the same.
The Court below in not so doing and by issuing warrant of arrest jointly without affording a minimum opportunity to the borrower to pay the money has committed illegality and resultantly made the provisions of law and the intention of legislature meaningless and, thereby, devised its own procedure which it cannot do.
The High Court Division is of the view that the Impugned Orders passed by the Artha Rin Adalat issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner Judgment debtor suffers from illegality and legal insufficiency.
The High Court Division held that it is found in this regard that the prioritization of liability as emphasized by the Petitioner is inherent to Section 6(5) of the Ain. Even though Section 6(5) on a simple reading appears to be applicable in respect of property, the Court keeping in mind the intention of the legislature ought to have proceeded with the process of execution following the aforesaid provision of law with respect to issuance of the warrant of arrest and detention of the guarantor in Civil Prison also. …..Md. Rabiul Ehsan Khan -Vs.- The Government of Bangladesh. (Spl. Original) 14 ALR (HCD) 117-120

Requires that the property mortgaged by the loanee is to be sold out first and if the decree is not satisfied then only the property mortgaged by third party mortgagor can be auction sold.
The High Court Division directed to proceed with Execution Case No. 21 of 2012 and to publish a fresh notice for auction sale of only schedule-A property as described in Execution Petition and dispose of the case in accordance with law subject to the following direction. The Adalat is further directed that if the sale proceeds of schedule-A property is not sufficient to satisfy the decree, then the Adalat shall proceed to hold auction sale of schedule-B property by way of publishing another fresh auction notice and shall dispose of the case in accordance with law. …..Nasrin Akther Wife of Md. Abu Nayeem of 115/128 Korbanigonj, Baluar Deghi East, Post Office-GPO, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Chittagong -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat-1, Chittagong and others. (Spl. Original) 12 ALR (HCD) 99-100

Since no property is mortgaged by the principal debtor, the properties mortgaged to the Bank by the judgment-debtor No. 4 is to be sold in auction first and the decree would be transferred in favour of the mortgagor and he may execute the decree against the principal debtor in view of section 6(5) of the Ain, 2003.
The High Court Division held that the principal borrower, a Private Limited Company, did not mortgage any property in favour of the Bank. But only the petitioner (judgment-debtor No. 4) mortgaged several properties in favour of the Bank as a security to the loan availed by the principal borrower. Since no property is mortgaged by the principal debtor, the properties mortgaged to the Bank by the judgment-debtor No. 4 is to be sold in auction first and the decree would be transferred in favour of the mortgagor and he may execute the decree against the principal debtor in view of section 6(5) of the Ain, 2003. …..Md. Nazim Uddin -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 4th Court, Dhaka Judges Court Building, Dhaka and others (Spl. Original) 13 ALR (HCD) 136-139

Whether mortgaged property should not be sold out or disposed of before selling the property mortgaged by the borrower of the suit ? …..Md. Rafiul Alam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and 2(two) others (Spl. Original) 9 ALR (HCD) 277-282

Since the law itself does not permit the creditor, bank to implead any party other than the persons/entity mentioned in section 6(5) of the Ain so this court cannot go beyond the said express provisions of law. The contention is advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent, bank that section 6(5) is not any conclusive element of impleading anyone apart from those 3 categories, if other person is found to have involvement in availing loan facilities and then he/she will also be impleaded as necessary party and since the present petitioners are admittedly share holders as well as directors of defendant no. 1, company so they are liable to re pay the loan and for that, they have rightly been implead as defendants in the suit, but we are not at one with the submissions, since there has been no avenue in the four corner of Artha Rin Adalat Ain to implead any share holder or director as defendant in any Artha Rin suit.
The very ratio so settled therein the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 23 BLT (HC) 115 has got every nexus with the instant case as these petitioners admittedly have not furnished any charge documents so invarlably they should not wait up to the final adjudication of a suit and in that regard we find legal force in the submission so made by the leaned counsel for the petitioners because it is not the case of the respondent no. 3 that, the petitioners had ever furnished charge document nor mortgaged any property against the loan as a security of repayment of the loan so they cannot be impleaded as defendant in the plaint of the suit in view of the express provision of section 6(5) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain. .....Sing Tel Asia Pacific Investment Pte. Limited, and others. -Vs.-Ministry of law, and others. (Spl.Original) 21 ALR (HCD) 62-66

No property was admittedly mortgaged by the principal debtor/loanee. Therefore the Artha Rin Adalat is bound to order to sell the mortgaged property which was included in the Schedule of the plaint/decree. It is now well settled that the company and its directors/shareholders are distinct and separate entities. There is no scope to treat the directors’ property as the property of the principal debtor. Both Ka as well as Kha Schedule properties have been mortgaged by third party mortgagors. They should be treated to be at par and the Artha Rin Adalat Committed no mistake in treating both the mortgaged property at par and lawfully included both the properties for auction to adjust the loan amount of the Bank. The High Court Division hold that the impugned order is lawful and in complete compliance with section 6(5) of the Artha Rin Act 2003 as well as directions given by the High Court Division in various writ petitions. The High Court Division has also considered the submission of Mr. Chowdhury with regard to his argument as to Judgment passed against dead person. This aspect has been resolved by this Division previously and as such the High Court Division does not think it appropriate to reopen the same issue which has been decided earlier by the High Court Division. In such view of the matter, the Atha Rin Adalat was fully justified in passing the order to sell the Ka Schedule property of the petitioners simultaneously with Kha Schedule property by auction and the impugned Order No. 89 dated 28.04.2011 has been passed with lawful authority. In view of the above, the High Court Division finds no substance in this Rule. Accordingly the Rule is discharged without any order as to cost. .....Mr. Jainul Karim. -Vs.- Govt. of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others (Spl.Original) 16 ALR (HCD) 180-185

Whether an Executing Court situated in a particular district can publish notices in the newspaper for the purpose of auction sale of the property situated in any other district of the country.
Whether an Artha Rin Adalat is under a legal obligation to transfer an execution case to another Adalat of the district where the property under auction sale is situated.
The High Court Division held that when a decree is passed by a competent Artha Rin Adalat, the execution case can be instituted in that Court under section 27 of the Ain but if the decree has to be satisfied by way of auction publicity has to be undertaken both at the national and local level where the property is situated and for that purpose, the execution case needs to be transferred to another Court under section 27(1) of the Ain. The word “may” occurring in section 39 (1) or the expression, “অন্য যে আদালতে প্রেরণ করে” occurring in section 27(1) of the Ain expresses an impression about the discretion of the Court where the execution case is instituted. In consideration of the whole scheme of the Ain with regard to territorial limit or jurisdiction of an Artha Rin Adalat over a district and the mandatory requirement of local publicity under section 33(1) of the Ain, the High Court Division cannot but to conclude that in relation to an auction sale of the property situated in another district an Artha Rin Adalat is under a legal obligation to send a case to the concerned Adalat of the other district where the property is situated. .....Md. Rafiul Alam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and 2(two) others (Spl.Original) 19 ALR (HCD) 185-189

So in absence of any property exclusively mortgaged by the principal debtor in favour of the Bank, the ejmali property mortgaged by the principal borrower and others jointly is to be sold to realize the decretal amount. Therefore, the Adalat was bound to sell ejmali property jointly mortgaged by the principal borrower and others in absence of any other property exclusively mortgaged by the principal debtor.
The High Court Division held that admittedly, in the instant case, the property described in schedule No. 2(1) of the plaint is exclusively owned by the 3rd. party mortgagor but rest of the mortgaged properties described in schedules No. 2(2)-2(6) are the paternal properties of the defendants of the suit and the principal borrower owning and possessing the same jointly with the other defendants. From the annexure-L, it is evident that the principal borrower and other defendants jointly executed mortgaged deed No. 3126 dated 24.10.2000 in respect of 1.62 acres of lands, which are undivided, un-demarcated paternal properties owned by them by inheritance. Said properties are not partitioned by metes and bounds till today but the Adalat misconstrued the provision of section 6(5) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and thereby passed the impugned order directing to sell .27 acres of land from 1.62 acres of scheduled land. The properties described in 2(2)-2(6) scheduled of the plaint are the paternal properties of the defendants of the suit and the same is still undivided, un-demarcated, joint property and in an Artha Rin Suit the Adalat has no authority to partition the undivided, un-demarcated, joint property amongst the co-sharers. Section 6(5) of the Ain, 2003 does not put any bar to sell any ejmaly/joint property mortgaged by the principal borrower with the 3rd. party guarantor in absence of any property mortgaged by the principal borrower exclusively owned by him. .....Pubali Bank Limited. -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Cox’s Bazar and others. (Sp.Original) 24 ALR (HCD) 398

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

Artha Rin Adalat is a court of limited jurisdiction created for particular purpose—not to try all the intricate issues of civil nature. .....Per M. Moazzam Husain J (dissenting). Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd vs Md. Salauddin, 16 BLC 277.

The affidavit under section 6(2) must be in a manner which is declaratory of conversance with and in attestation of the documents submitted in court in support of the claim of the plaintiff. In the event the suit is disposed of ex-parte the absence of declaration as regards the veracity of the documents becomes relevant and any ex-parte decree if passed in suit on the basis of the same affidavit without examination of witness and formal proof of documents would be inadequate and liable to be set-aside. .....Rashida Yasmin vs Bangladesh, Secretary Minister of Law (Spl Original), 25 BLC 212

Section 6(4) of the Ain, mandates the Adalat to dispose of an Artha Rin suit exparte or instantly by simply considering the plaint (prepared under affidavit) or written statement (made with affidavit) and the documents filed therewith, upon treating all of them as substantive evidence and, thus, pleadings with affidavits is the focal-point of this provision and any formal examination of witnesses has got less emphasis in the Ain, 2003. .....Osman Gazi Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat, 21 BLC 322.

The meaning of the expression "হলফনামযুক্ত আরজি বা জবাব" employed in section 6(4) of the Ain, is that the plaint (made with affidavit) is to be considered and where necessary the written statement (made under affidavit) is also to be considered. Hence, in Bangla the following expression হলফনামাযুক্ত আরজি এবং যথাযথ ক্ষেত্রে বিবাদীর হলফনামাযুক্ত জবাব’’ would sound more appropriate. .....Osman Gazi Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat, 21 BLC 322.

While allowing the application the Judge has not assigned any reason based on any legal aspect but since the Judge ultimately allowed the application which we find, to be justified one and the impugned order is liable to be sustained basing on the provision of section 6(5) of the Ain as there has been no scope to implied any person other than the category so have been specified in that very section. .....Uttara Bank Limited vs People's Republic of Bangladesh 26 BLC 62.

Section 6(5) of the Ain provides a guideline as to how the defendants can be impleaded in the proceedings of the Artha Rin Suit. The financial institution can institute a suit against the principal debtor, the third party mortgagor and the guarantor of the loan in question if he is related to the loan. .....Nusrat Jahan vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 29 BLC 117.

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

From a perusal of the first proviso to section 6(5) it appears that in the event of execution of a decree for realization of decretal amount the court shall proceed with the property of the borrower first and then the property of the third-party mortgagors.
In the present case admittedly the Schedule "Ka" property belongs to the petitioners which was placed as security against the loan to the bank as third-party mortgage. Given these facts and circumstances, this Court finds that as per provision of law the Artha Rin Adalat ought to have proceeded with the auction of the borrower's property first. But instead the Adalat published the auction notice for sale of the third-party mortgaged property along with property of the borrower in violation of the provisions to section 6(5) of the Ain which under the law the court cannot do. Keeping in mind the provisions of law as contained in the 1st proviso to section 6(5) the court ought not to have placed the Schedule "Ka" property owned by the petitioners as third-party mortgage without selling the property of the borrower first. Therefore, the Adalat is, hereby, directed to proceed with the execution proceedings by putting the property owned by the borrower in auction first upon compliance of the provisions contained in section 33(1) of the Ain and in the event of finding no bidder in the auction or any shortfall in the money raised in auction the property of the petitioners third-party mortgagors may be put in auction following the provisions of section 33(1) of the Ain and other provisions related with the auction process and consequentially dispose of the execution proceedings within the shortest possible time. .....Abul Hossain Khan vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 29 BLC 311.

The High Court Division while making the Rule absolute upon setting aside the order committed illegality by not allowing the developer to be added as a party in the suit under Order I, rule 10 of the Code inasmuch as section 6(5) of the Ain which provides guidelines as to how the defendants can be impleaded in the proceedings of Artha Rin Suit is in conformity with the provisions of the Order. .....One Bank Ltd vs Chaya Developer (Pvt) Ltd, 21 BLC (AD) 203.

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.

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.

From a plain reading of the provisions of sections 32(1)(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, it manifests that any third party may submit his claim in any execution case arising out of a decree or an order of the Artha Rin Adalat after making deposit of 25% decretal amount as security otherwise, the Adalat shall reject the claim. .....Harunurur Rashid Bhuiyan vs Pubali Bank Ltd, 15 BLC 458.

The provision of section 6(5) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 are 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 realise the decretal amount. Therefore, the Adalat was bound to sell the mortgaged property which was included in the schedule of the plaint/decree. .....Abdus Sattar Miah vs Bangladesh, 14 BLC 412.

Proviso-Proviso to section 6(5) of the Ain authorizes the Adalat to attract the properties of the principal borrower at first for recovery of claim by way of execution by the financial institution and thereafter, respectively the properties of third party mortgagor and then third party guarantor for such realization. .....Elite Iron and Steel GP Sheet Ltd vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 4th Court (Spl Original) 23 BLC 655

Admittedly, petitioner was neither a borrower nor guarantor and even nor a mortgagor relating to the loan liability and, therefore, he is not liable for repayment of the loan inasmuch as the petitioner does not come within the purview of sub-section (5) of section 6 of the Ain, wherein who will be the necessary party in the Artha Rin suit has been provided, and hence the suit ought to have been dismissed as against the petitioner. .....Mahbub Ali vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 27 BLC 77

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

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

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.

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.

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

Artha Rin Adalat shall follow and apply the Code 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 provisions of the Ain. Section 6(Ka), has excluded the operation of Rules 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in matters of execution of any decree. Artha Rin Adalat shall execute its decree applying the provisions of sections 55 and 56 of the Code read with Order XXI and the rules made thereunder except the rules 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Application of section 56 of the Code, has not been excluded by section 6(Ka). .....Sonali Bank Limited vs UT Garments Limited, 67 DLR 265.

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

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.

When a plaint is rejected for not supplying stamp paper within a time fixed by the court and there is sufficient cause for not supplying the same within the time, restoration of plaint may be ordered on an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. .....Radha Rani Sadhu Kha vs Durga Rani Adhikari, 47 DLR 360.

In this case admittedly, the Bank did not put in deficit Court— fee within the time extended by the Adalat and the Adalat accepted the deficit Court fee by extending time up to 19-5-2003 in exercise of its discretion under section 148, 149 and 151 of the Code, and also in exercise of its discretion under section 57 of the Ain, 2003 which provides similar provision like section 151 of the Code. .....BR Apparels Ltd vs Bangladesh, 60 DLR 76.

The court itself can also exercised this provision directing the bank to prepare and produce all the documents before the court with a reasonable time and since as per provisions of sub-section 4 of section 6 of the Ain, for disposal of the suit subject to provision of sub-section 2 and 3 the affidavit filed along with the plaint, may be treat as substantive evidence and the Adalat for disposal of the proceedings without examining the witness may consider the documents filed with affidavit. .....Janata Bank Limited vs Diniat Begum (Civil), 73 DLR 176

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.

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.

A guarantor although a debtor, is not খেলাপী ঋণ গ্রহীতা within the meaning of section 5(Gaga) of the Bank Companies Act, 1991 and therefore, his name cannot be included in the CIB list. .....Major Monjur Quader (Retd) vs Bangladesh Bank 59 DLR 451.

The property mortgaged by the loanee is to be sold out first and if the decree is not satisfied then only the property mortgaged by trial party mortgagor can be auction sold. .....Nasrin Akther vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat-1, Chittagong (Spl Original) 71 DLR 24

Soon after purchasing the same, he mutated his name in the Khatian and erected one-storied building and also planted different types of trees by mutating his name in the khatian and has been paying khazna to the respective Tahshil Office. He acquired an indefeasible right and title over the property and thereby his presence is very much required in disposing of the suit effectively. The petitioner is a proper and necessary party in whose presence the suit should be disposed of. .....Ruhul Amin (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 74 DLR 618

In executing the decree Artha Rin Adalat follows the procedure laid down in Code of Civil Procedure and it is settled executing court cannot go beyond the decree. .....Sonali Bank Limited vs UT Garments Limited, 67 DLR 265.

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.

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.

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.

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

Whether the property of the borrower company should be sold first as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner
Held; Considering this very submission of the writ petitioners and the other facts and circumstances we direct the Artha Rin Adalat concerned to sell the property of the borrower company, if any at all, first for the purpose of realization of decreetal amount and after adjusting the sale proceeds thereof if any portion of the decreetal amount remains unpaid then to sell the mortgaged properties of 3rd party mortgagor and 3rd party guarantor in accordane with Section 6(5) of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. .....Jainul Karim & Anr Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Anr 27BLT(HCD)111

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

Whether a share-holder of a company is a necessary party in the Artha Rin Suit
Held; 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. .....Mahbub Ali Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Ors 23BLT (HCD)115

Section 6 (1)— Artha rin Adalat is not a full fledged civil court created for particular purpose and not to try all the intricate issues arise from a loan transaction against which remedy lies only in the civil court. .....Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd. Vs. Mr. Md. Salauddin and others (Civil), 1 LNJ 1
Section 6 (1)— Separate suit having been filed challenging the judgment and degree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat the suit is being barred by law and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. .....Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd. VS Mr. Md. Salauddin and others (Civil), 1 LNJ 1.

Section 26 provides that as regards execution of decree passed under this Ain the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are applicable if these are not in conflict with the provisions of the Ain. In the instant case, the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code are not in conflict with those of the Ain, 2003 inasmuch as the former is very much in conformity with the provisions of section 6(5) of the Ain and as such the former is applicable in the instant suit. .....One Bank Ltd. Vs. Chaya Developer (Pvt.) Ltd. (Civil) 4 LNJ 292

The language used in the section makes it clear that the plaint has to be filed along with an affidavit, both as to the statements made in the plaint as well as to the documents annexed with the plaint. Therefore, non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of law has rendered the plaint invalid in the eye of law and consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the Adalat cannot be sustained in law. ...Md. Shariful Alam Vs Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 5 SCOB [2015] HCD 6 ....View Full Judgment

It appears that, admittedly, defendant no. 3-petitioner was neither a borrower nor guarantor and even nor a mortgagor relating to the loan liability and, therefore, he is not liable for repayment of the loan inasmuch as the petitioner does not come within the purview of sub-section (5) of section 6 of the Ain, 2003, wherein who will be the necessary party in the Artha Rin suit has been provided, and hence the suit ought to have been dismissed as against this defendant no. 3- petitioner. ...Mahbub Ali Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat & ors, (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 102 ....View Full Judgment

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

Thus, the apex Court held that three categories of persons including mortgagor shall be liable for the decretal dues jointly and severally. Although the mortgagor defendants comes after principal borrower but this observation does not help the petitioner to escape from the liabilities of decretal dues, if any, inasmuch as according to section 6(5) of the Act, 2003 he will be one of the judgment debtors and responsibility are equal/same with the principal borrower subject to 2nd proviso to section 6(5) of the Act, 2003. Therefore, on failure to adjust the decretal dues by the mortgaged property, the petitioner shall have to face consequence under section 34 (1) of the Act, 2003 by way of civil imprisonment alongwith principal borrower. .....Ali Imam Vs. The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat & ors, (Spl. Original), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 76 ....View Full Judgment

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

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

Article 102 (2)(a)(ii) of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh &
Section 6(5) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003:
In the event of execution of a decree for realization of decretal amount the court shall proceed with the property of the borrower first and then the property of the third-party mortgagors. ...Abul Hossain Khan & anr Vs. Artha Rin Adalat, Barguna & Ors., (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 110 ....View Full Judgment

Execution case shall proceed simultaneously against all the judgment debtors:
A 3rd party guarantor involved with the loan shall also be impleaded in the suit as defendant alongwith the principal borrower and the mortgagor and that the decree, if any, shall be effective against all defendants jointly and severally and the execution case shall proceed simultaneously against all the judgment debtors. Therefore, section 34(1) applies to all the judgment debtors to compell them to repay the decretal dues. However, in disposing of the property of the judgment debtors, by the 1st proviso to section 6(5), the legislature put a condition to the effect that the property of the principal borrower shall attract first and thereafter, the property of 3rd party mortgagor and the 3rd party guarantor respectively. But in awarding civil detention under section 34(1) of the Act, 2003 to compel the judgment debtors to satisfy decree, there is no such provision and here the condition is, absence of property or failure to sell mortgaged property. In this case, according to the application filed by the Bank, there is no property belong to the judgment debtors, considering which the Adalat awarded civil detention against both the principal borrower and the guarantor as well. ...Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 ....View Full Judgment

Guarantor’s property shall be attracted after the property of principal borrower:
Privilege of a guarantor to become liable to repay after borrower’s default, remains only before instituting the suit. In other words, on failure to repay by the principal borrower, the guarantor had to pay the liability on demand. But both being failed to repay, the matter has been brought before the Court seeking relief against both of them liable and under section 6(5) of the Act, the decree being passed, both of them are liable jointly and severally and execution case shall proceed simultaneously against both of them. However, due to 1st proviso to section 6(5) of the Act, only guarantor’s property shall be attracted after the property of principal borrower. ...Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 ....View Full Judgment

The word ‘আদালত’ as appears in the context of Section 7(1) bears reference to a scenario emerging when the Court which in its considered opinion thinking it just and expedient for a notice to be published in a national daily and in a local newspaper, if there be any, for ends of justice, and making an order to publish a notice at the cost of the plaintiff. But in the present case the plaintiff –Respondent No.2 itself took step under section 7(1) of the Act on its own motion on the date fixed for return of summons and acknowledgement receipt after service upon the defendants without waiting for the report of the Process Server and Order of the Court to that effect. It is noted that the summons in a suit shall be served by the Process Server simultaneously through postal department, and in evidence of the sending of the summons through post the postal receipt thereof must be tagged with the record. But in the present case no summons was served through Process Server or by post nor any attempt was made to serve the notice/ summons upon the defendants. Moreover, no Order has been passed by the Court necessitating publication of summons in the daily newspaper. Rather publication in the newspaper ensued at the behest of and as desired by the plaintiff which, in this Court’s view is contrary to the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Act. ...Shetu International Pvt. ltd & ors Vs. Artha Rin Adalat-2, Dhaka & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 157

ধারা ৭(১)— ‘আদালত’ শব্দটি ৭(১) ধারার প্রসঙ্গে এমন একটি পরিস্থিতিকে উল্লেখ করে যেখানে ন্যায় বিচারের স্বার্থে আদালত বাদীর খরচে স্থানীয় ও জাতীয় দৈনিক সংবাদপত্রে নোটিশ প্রকাশ ন্যায়সঙ্গত ও উপযুক্ত বলে সিদ্ধান্ত প্রদান করবে। বর্তমান মামলায় বাদী-২নং উত্তরদায়ক বিবাদীর উপর সমন জারির পর নির্ধারিত তারিখে সমন ফেরত ও প্রাপ্তি স্বীকারের উপর আদালতের আদেশ ও প্রসেস সার্ভারের রিপোর্টের অপেক্ষায় না থেকে নিজ উদ্যোগে ৭(১) ধারার অধীন ব্যবস্থা গ্রহণ করেছিল। এখানে উল্লেখ্য যে, মামলার সমন পোস্টাল ডিপার্টমেন্টের মাধ্যমে প্রসেস সার্ভার কর্তৃক তাৎক্ষণিকভাবে প্রেরণ করতে হয় এবং সমনের পোস্টাল রিসিপটের প্রমাণ নথিতে অবশ্যই সংরক্ষণ করতে হবে। কিন্তু বর্তমান মামলায় কোনো সমন প্রোসেস সার্ভারের প্রেরণ করা হয়নি অথবা বিবাদীকে সমন/নোটিশ দেওয়ার কোনো চেষ্টা করা হয়নি। এমনকি আদালত দৈনিক সংবাদপত্রে সমন জারির কোনো আদেশ প্রদানের প্রয়োজনীয়তা অনুভব করেনি। বরং বাদীর ইচ্ছায় ও আদেশে সংবাদপত্রে প্রকাশিত হয় যা হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের মতে আইনের ৭(১) ধারার বিধানের পরিপন্থি। ...Shetu International Pvt. ltd & ors Vs. Artha Rin Adalat-2, Dhaka & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 157 ....View Full Judgment

A person who is aggrieved by the decree of a Artha Rin Suit, may bring a fresh suit who is neither a mortgagor, nor guarantor nor a judgment debtor. .....Rowshan Ara Begum vs Rupali Bank Ltd, 68 DLR 265.

Since the Artha Rin Adalat Act does not provide any provision, directly or indirectly, contrary to provision of order 9, rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure an application under order 9, rule 9 of the Code of civil Procedure can be entertained by the Artha Rin Adalat. .....Sonali Bank vs Md Al-Akram (Badal), 46 DLR 671; Agrani Bank vs Artha Rin Adalat, 55 DLR 389.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Sections 7—Against judgment and decree of Artha Rin Adalat two remedies are available one is appeal before the High Court Division and the other is an application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC against expert decree. In both the cases the defendant-judgement-debtor must deposit 50% of the decretal amount in the trial court or Bank guarantee of equivalent amount as pre-condition. Except either of the above courses, if a suit is filed in a court of ordinary civil jurisdiction, such a suit being barred by law the plaint thereof is liable to be rejected outright under Order 7 rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. .....Delwar Hossain vs. Janata Bank, 9 MLR (2004) 17 = 8 BLC 411

ধারা ৭— অর্থঋণ আদালতের রায় ও ডিক্রির বিরুদ্ধে দুইটি প্রতিকার বিদ্যমান, যথা: (১) হাইকোর্ট বিভাগে আপিল এবং (২) দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধির আদেশ-৯, বিধি-১৩ এর অধীন একতরফা ডিক্রির বিরুদ্ধে আবেদন। উভয় ক্ষেত্রে বিবাদী-দায়িককে অবশ্যই ডিক্রির অর্থের ৫০% অথবা পূর্বশর্ত হিসাবে সমপরিমাণ অর্থের ব্যাংক গ্যারান্টি বিচারিক আদালতে জমা দিতে হবে। উপরোক্ত কারণ ব্যতীত যদি মামলা সাধারণ দেওয়ানি এখতিয়ারভূক্ত আদালতে দায়ের করে তাহলে মামলাটি আইন দ্বারা বারিত হওয়ার কারণে আরজিটি দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধির আদেশ-৭, বিধি ১১(ঘ) অনুসারে প্রত্যাখিত হবে। .....Delwar Hossain vs. Janata Bank, 9 MLR (2004) 17 = 8 BLC 411

Admittedly, the lands which are the self acquired property of the petitioner were not mortgaged to the bank for recovery of the loan amount of the borrower and the petitioner is neither loanee nor mortgagor or guarantor for the loan of her husband and admittedly she has not inherited any property from her husband, the borrower. The provision of section 8(7) of the Ain has got no manner of application for recovery of the loan of the borrower, now dead, by selling out the self-acquired property of the petitioner. .....Rezia Bibi alias Rezia Khatun Bibi vs Artha Rin Adalat, Bogra (Spl Original) 24 BLC 44

Disclose the non disclosed material facts and transaction with reference to their sanction advice. .....Mohammad Ali vs Judge, (Joint District Judge) Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong (Spl Original) 24 BLC 120

The learned trial Court gave emphasis on the statement of the local manager of the plaintiff-Bank. But the Bank is a financial institution. It deals with the public money. Particular official has got no personal option to deal in the financial matter. Therefore, the statement of the local manager of the plaintiff-Bank in his cross-examination is not binding upon the Bank. The learned trial Court considered the claim of the Bank and exempted 50% interest. So, he cannot reduce the rate of interest which is in the sanction letter. .....Pubali Bank Ltd vs. Md. Nurul Hoque, 14 BLC 494.

read with Code of Civil Procedure, Order 11, rule 14—It appears that the learned Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, by his order dated 25-2-2009, had already directed the plaintiff to file the documents as mentioned in the application dated 1-1-2009 but has not yet been fully complied with although the plaintiff is obliged to do so. If the plaintiff fails to comply, the learned Judge is to take appropriate measure in this respect in accordance with the provision of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 read with the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure. .....Mir Rashed Ali Ahmed vs. Artha Rin Adalat, 17 BLT (2009) 416.

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.

The plaintiff in order to get the decree has to come to the court with clean hands and as per or. 11, r. 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under section 8 (3), (4) and (5) the plaintiff is under obligation to file the original documents on the basis of which the decree is sought from the court. The court will consider whether the plaintiff has complied with the provision of law and if the court finds that the plaintiff is avoiding to file the documents before the court in that case the court will certainly give direction Upon the plaintiff as contemplated under Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and Civil Procedure Code, failing which the court shall pass necessary order against the plaintiff for withholding the deeds/documents.The court will not make any distinction whoever is the plaintiff. .....Shaharul Amin Golder vs. Artha Rin Adalat, 18 BLT 127.

Section 8 (Ga)— Under the Ain the Bank bound to disclose the non disclosed material facts and transaction with reference to their sanction advice.
The High Court Division directed it is therefore prayed that your honour would be pleased to direct the plaintiff to disclose the non disclosed material facts and transaction with reference to their sanction advice, quadry-party agreement and in view of para 3, 6 and claim schedule to the plaint either by way of amendment or by withdrawal of the suit and or in the alternative to reject the plaint for non compliance of section 8 (Ga) of the Ain. …..Mohammad Ali -Vs.- Judge, (Joint District Judge) Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong and others. (Spl. Original) 12 ALR (HCD) 54-55

ধারা ৮(গ)— এই আইনের অধীন ব্যাংক অবশ্যই মঞ্জুরের আদেশ অনুসারে, অপ্রকাশিত ঘটনা ও লেনদেন প্রকাশ করতে বাধ্য। আবেদনের কারণে বাদীকে চতুর্থপক্ষীয় চুক্তি এবং ৩ ও ৬ প্যারা ও আরজির সংশোধিত দাবীর তফসিল বা মামলা প্রত্যাহার অথবা আইনের ধারা ৮(গ) পরিপালনের ব্যর্থতার কারণে আরজি প্রত্যাহারের বিকল্প রেফারেন্স অনুসারে অপ্রকাশিত সত্য ঘটনা ও লেনদেন মঞ্জুরের আদেশ প্রকাশের জন্য হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ নির্দেশ দেয়। …..Mohammad Ali -Vs.- Judge, (Joint District Judge) Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong and others. (Spl. Original) 12 ALR (HCD) 54-55

Impugned Judgment and decree passed under Section 13(1) —Held if there is no specific admission made in the written statement as contemplated in section 9 (5) of the Ain, the Adalat cannot come to conclusion as regards the said fact of the case. Md. Arfan Uddin Akand & Ors Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Ors 15 BLT (HCD)343

If there is no specific admission made in the written statement as contemplated in section 9(5) of the Ain, the Adalat cannot come to conclusion as regards the said fact of the case." .....Md. Arfan Uddin Akand vs Artha Rin Adalat, 15 BLT 343.

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

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.

In the instant case, we have noticed that the trial Court below for the first time fixed the date for an ex-parte hearing on 28.02.2022, and on that day the petitioner appeared before the trial Court along with an application prayed for time to submit the written statement, which was rejected and thereby passed the ex-parte judgment and decree on the same day in presence of the petitioner as evident from Annexure – B to the writ petition. So it is crystal clear that in violation of the mandatory provision of section 19(1) of the Ain 2003, the ex-parte judgment and decree has been passed and, as such, it is a nullity in the eye of the law. .....Mosarrof Hosen and anr Vs. Artha Rin Adalat-1, Dhaka & ors, (Spl. Original), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 126 ....View Full Judgment

There are no provisions in section 10 of the Ain for filing applications against the ex-parte judgments and decree of the Adalat similar to the provisions contained in section 19(2) of the Ain. It was open to the defendant to explore possible avenues of redress otherwise available under the Ain. While the appeal provisions of section 41 come immediately to mind, in addition, a reading of section 26 of the Act serves to provide an indication of invoking relevant provisions of the Code. .....ABSCO Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat No.2, Dhaka, 67 DLR 9.

The law itself is a flexible one. We simply cannot understand when the law itself is so positive on the issue how the court below passed an exparte decree holding that though the defendant was given time to file written statement they did not file the same. Absolutely on a perverse finding and without applying judicial mind the Court below decreed the suit ex-parte where in so doing not even the plaintiff was examined. It baffles us. It pricks our judicial conscience when we see the issue which goes at the root of jurisdiction of the suit has been disregarded in such a manner without any subjective or objective consideration whatsoever which leads to absurdity and absolutely without any lawful authority. .....Abdul Hamid Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat, 68 DLR 148.

On perusal of the aforesaid provision, it transpires that before passing an ex-parte judgment and decree the trial Court has to be satisfied at first, the following requirement has been fulfilled mainly that (a) the date was fixed for ex-parte hearing and (b) the defendant does not appear on that day or (3) the defendant is not found present after he was called. .....Mosarrof Hosen and anr Vs. Artha Rin Adalat-1, Dhaka & ors, (Spl. Original), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 126 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 10 and 19(1)— The High Court Division found that the date fixed for hearing of the case necessarily means a date falling after the filing of written statements under Section 10 of the Ain in evidence of a suit being actually and duly contested by the defendants. Thus Section 19(1) is not attracted in the present case as the petitioners did not file written statements. …..ABSCO Limited -V s. -The Artha Rin Adalat No.2, Dhaka & another. 4 ALR 2014(2) 326

ধারা ১০ ও ১৯(১)— হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ মনে, মামলার শুনানির জন্য তারিখ নির্ধারিত ছিল। ১০ ধারার অধীন লিখিত জবাব দাখিলের পর শুনানির তারিখ নির্ধারিত হয় বিবাদী কর্তৃক প্রমাণ দ্বারা মামলায় প্রতিদ্বন্দিতা করার জন্য। ফলে পিটিশনার লিখিত জবাব না দেওয়ায় আইনের ১৯(১) ধারাকে আকৃষ্ট করে না। …..ABSCO Limited -V s. -The Artha Rin Adalat No.2, Dhaka & another. 4 ALR 2014(2) 326 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 10 and 19—Upon the grounds for ex-parte proceedings maturing under section 10 there remains no scope under the scheme of the Ain for the section 19 provisions for ex-parte hearing to equally come into play. Section 19 in this regard is found to be predicated upon a due filing of written statement taking place as per the provisions of section 10 and permits of no ground or scope for being invoked in the opposite scenario of filing of written statements not duly taking place as prescribed under section 10 in that utter contingency. Section 10 is found to have a self-contained response mechanism and procedure of its own, thereby, by necessary construction making it an impossibility to further invoke the section 19 provisions on ex-parte hearing and disposal. By that reason, in the present case, the court having assumed jurisdiction to proceed with the case ex-parte under section 10(1) of the Ain there resultantly remained no legal sanction for the petitioners to further additionally opt to take recourse to section 19 of the Ain given their initial failure to comply with the provisions of section 10 of the Ain. .....ABSCO Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat No.2, Dhaka, 67 DLR 9.

ধারা ১০ ও ১৯— ১০ ধারার অধীন বিচার প্রক্রিয়া একতরফা হওয়ার কারণে আইন অনুসারে ১৯ ধারায় একইভাবে একতরফা শুনানির সুযোগ নেই। ১০ ধারা অনুসারে যথাযথভাবে লিখিত জবাব দাখিলের পর ১৯ ধারার বিষয় দৃশ্যমান হয় এবং ১০ ধারা অনুসারে লিখিত জবাব দাখিল করা না হলে এই আকস্মিক বিপরীত পরিস্থিতিতে কোনো অজুহাত অনুমোদন বা আহ্ববানের সুযোগ নেই। ১০ ধারাকে স্বয়ংসম্পূর্ণ জবাবের পদ্ধতি বলা যায় এবং পদ্ধতিটি নিজস্ব সেকারণে প্রয়োজনীয় সংস্কারের মাধ্যমে ১৯ ধারায় একতরফা শুনানি ও নিষ্পত্তি অসম্ভব। বর্তমান মামলায় আদালতের ১০(১) ধারা বিধানুসারে একতরফা অগ্রসরের এখতিয়ার রয়েছে বিধায় আইনী কোনো অনুমোদন না থাকার ফলে পিটিশনারের আইনের ১০ ধারার পরিপালনের ব্যর্থতায় পুনরায় ১৯ ধারায় অতিরিক্ত সুযোগ গ্রহণের সুযোগ নেই।

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

Handwriting expert of CID
The expert failed to compare the specimen signature of the petitioner with those in Exhibits 4,4(ka),4(umo), 4(cha) and 4(chha), 9 and in the disputed written statement dated 16.08.2004. Therefore the petitioner filed another application on 12.03.2013 seeking a direction upon the expert to submit a report afresh after comparing the disputed signature with the admitted signature of the petitioner in accordance with the terms of reference passed by the Adalat. …..Hazrat Imam Sayeed Muhammad Dillur Rahman, Director -Vs- Artha Rin Adalat No.1, Dhaka and 11 (eleven) others. (Spl. Original) 10 ALR (HCD) 187-191

The writ petition is not maintainable against the private bank.
The High Court Division held that the Rule was issued on 07.11.2016 challenging the auction notice under section 12 of the Ain dated 20.10.2016 and simply for that reason this Rule has become infructuous. Secondly, the writ petition is not maintainable against the private bank. The decision of 65 DLR 138 as referred to above is the authority on the point. Thirdly, Appellate Division also held in the case reported in 63 DLR (AD) 160 as referred to above that as the petitioner finds remedy under proviso to section 12(8) of Ain, the writ petition on that score is not maintainable. Considering all the aspects as stated above High Court Division hold that the writ petition should be discharged as being not maintainable. That being the position, the Rule is discharged with cost. …..Tania Morshed -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others. (Spl. Original) 12 ALR (HCD) 177-178

Writ petition is not maintainable against a private bank.
The High Court Division held that it is now settled principle of law that writ petition is not maintainable against a private bank. The issue is no longer a res integra. Therefore, the Rule issued in WP No. 3798 of 2015 so far as it relates to publication of auction notice dated 30.03.2015 by the respondent City Bank Ltd. in the newspaper under section 12 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 must fail. Rules issued in WP Nos. 3798, 4239 and 4243 of 2015 in respect of direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioners’ applications for restructuring of their loan liabilities must fail for the same reason so far as they relate to private banks. In respect of this part of the Rules relating to seeking a direction upon Bangladesh Bank in the form of writ of mandamus, suffice it to say that since no legitimate expectation or legal rights have accrued under the impugned Circular in favour of the petitioners, there has been no violation of any legal right of the petitioners by Bangladesh Bank in not considering the representations of the petitioners. So, this part of the Rules also must fail. However, High Court Division noted that the representations of the petitioners have not been disposed of by Bangladesh Bank. For the sake of fairness and justice Bangladesh Bank should dispose of the representations in accordance with law. Accordingly these Rules are discharged. …..Gazipur Paperboard Limited - Vs. - Bangladesh Bank and others (Spl. Original) 8 ALR (HCD) 137-145

According to the provisions of Section 44 of the Ortho Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, Revision or Appeal is not maintainable and cannot be entertained against any interlocutory order passed by any Artho Rin Court under the provisions of section 44 of the Ain.
The High Court Division has heard the learned Advocate for the opposite party perused the materials on record, the relevant law of the provisions of Artha Rin Ain including the decision cited before the High Court Division by the learned Advocate for the opposite party. Upon perusal of the materials on record read along with Section 44 of the Ain, the High Court Division finds force in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the opposite party. Section 44 of the Ain expressly debars any appeal or revision against any interlocutory order passed by an Artho Rin Court. A mere perusal of section 34 of the Ain reveals that the very nature of an order under section 34 is an interlocutory order depending on the facts and circumstances. The High Court Division is also in respectful agreement with the decision of our Apex Court in the 53DLR case cited before us and which is binding upon the High Court Division. Further, it has also been found in other decisions of the High Court Division, that according to the provisions of Section 44 of the Ortho Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, Revision or Appeal is not maintainable and cannot be entertained against any interlocutory order passed by any Artho Rin Court under the provisions of section 44 of the Ain. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and especially the provisions of section 44 of the Artha Rin Ain which debars any appeal or revision against any interlocutory orders the High Court Division finds no merit in the Rule. In the result, the Rule is discharged. .....M/S. Jimtaj Agro Food Products -Vs.- Janata Bank Limited (Civil) 30 ALR (HCD) 286

Guidelines for the Artharin Adalat to deal with the proceeding under Section 12(3) of the Artharin Ain.
(1) The Banks/Financial Institutions must not file any Artharin Suit without, at first, selling or having failed to sell the liened and/or pledged and/or hypothecated and/or mortgaged property of both movable and immovable nature.
(2) Before filing the Artharin Suit, the Banks/Financial Institutions are competent to put the mortgaged/hypothecated property more than once, if the 1st auction does not wield or succeed in providing/getting the expected price or fails for some other reason.
(3) In a scenario where the Banks/Financial Institutions despite invoking Section 12(3) of the Artharin Ain, could not attract any bidder because of filing any case by the mortgagor or hypothecated goods owner, the Adalat shall allow the Banks/Financial Institutions to invoke Section 12(3) of the Artha rin Ain afresh treating it as continuation of the proceeding under Section 12(3) of the Artharin Ain commenced earlier.
(4) The Banks/Financial Institutions shall not be allowed to put the mortgaged/hypothecated property on auction after filing of the Artharin Suit if the Court finds that provision of Section 12(3) of the Artharin Adalat was invoked by the Banks/Financial Institutions before filing of the Artharin Suit without being interrupted by the mortgagor.
(5) The Banks/Financial Institutions are competent to sell the liened and pledged properties, even after filing the Artharin Suit if they consciously or inadvertently have not sold the said liened/pledged properties. .....Dr. Kazi Sirazul Islam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka and others (Spl. Original) 29 ALR (HCD)59

Whether is it compulsory for the Banks/Financial Institutions to accomplish proceeding under Section 12(3) before filing the Artharin Suit?
By the provisions of sub-Sections (1) & (3) of Section 12 of the Artharin Ain the Legislature has imposed an obligation upon the Banks/Financial Institutions to sell or to put their best efforts to sell all the movable and immovable properties, which are liened or pledged or hypothecated or mortgaged against the loan money taken by the debtor upon conferring/vesting a power of selling in favour of the Banks/Financial Institutions. However, vide sub-Sections (2) & (6) of Section 12 of the Artharin Ain by providing certain alternative obligations, in case of non-compliance of the provisions of the aforesaid two sub-Sections (1) & (3), the obligations of the Banks/Financial Institutions as to selling or trying utmost to sell have been made directory in nature. It also appears to this Court that sub-Section (2) of Section 12 of the Artharin Ain expressly dictates the Banks/Financial Institutions to sell the liened and pledged properties even after filing the Artharin Suit, in case of their (i.e. of Banks/Financial Institutions) failure to comply with the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Artharin Ain, but no such imperative is provided in the law in the event of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Artharin Ain by the Banks/Financial Institutions as to their duty of selling or putting their best effort to sell the mortgaged and/or hypothecated properties. .....Dr. Kazi Sirazul Islam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka and others (Spl. Original) 29 ALR (HCD) 59

Whether the Banks/Financial Institutions can put a mortgaged property on auction more than once before filing Artharin Suit?
While before filing Artharin Suit the Banks/Financial Institutions are competent to put a mortgaged/hypothecated property on auction for more than once, there is no scope for them (Banks/Financial Institutions) to invoke Section 12(3) of the Artharin Ain for the second time during pendency of the Artharin Suit if they have truly failed to sell the mortgaged/hypothecated property despite putting their best efforts before filing the Artharin Suit. And, when the Banks/Financial Institutions file Artharin Suit without invoking Section 12(1) of the Artharin Adalat, Section 12(2) of the Artharin Ain directs them to invoke Section 12(1) of the Artharin Ain during the trial of the said suit, but in case of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Artharin Ain, there having no such provision in place similar to Section 12(2)of the Artharin Ain, the Banks/Financial Institutions should not seek to invoke Section 12(3) of the Artharin Ain after filing Artharin Suit, for, the Legislature has provided an alternative provision in Section 12 (6) which dictates that the Adalat shall deduct the value of the mortgaged/hypothecated property from the decretal amount. But after filing the Artharin Suit if the Banks/Financial Institutions or any other defendant of the said Artharin Suit can satisfy the Adalat that proceeding of Section 12(3) of the Artharin Ain was stopped or harnessed by the mortgagor or the owner of the hypothecated property, during pendency of the Artharin suit the Adalat shall be competent to restart the said proceeding under Section 12(3) of the Artharin Ain upon halting the trial for a certain limited period by publishing fresh notices stating the reasons thereof, inasmuch as a cunning device adopted by a wicked mortgagor should not be allowed to defeat the scheme of enactment of Section 12(3) of the Artharin Ain. .....Dr. Kazi Sirazul Islam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka and others (Spl. Original) 29 ALR (HCD) 59

When the proceeding under Section 12(3) is stopped at the behest of the interested party before filing the Artharin Suit, whether the Banks/Financial Institutions or any other party can ask the Artharin Adalat to put the mortgaged property on auction during pendency of the Artharin Suit?
When a proceeding under Section 12(3) of the Artharin Ain is intentionally frustrated by the mortgagor or by the owner of the hypothecated goods by filing an apparent meritless, fallacious and frivolous case/suit in any Court of law, the Artharin Adalat shall be competent to hold that the Bank’s said failure can not by any stretch of imagination be covered within the expression “বিক্রয়ের চেষ্টা করিয়া ব্যর্থ না হইয়া, অর্থঋণ আদালতে কোন মামলা দায়ের করিবে না” (no Artharin Suit shall be filed without, at first, being failed to sell the mortgaged/hypothecated property”), as engraved in Section 12(3) of the Artharin Ain. Therefore, when the first auction under Section 12(3) of the Artharin Ain by the Bank is frustrated by the mortgagor or borrower or guarantor by filing any case and, then, the Bank/Financial Institution files Artharin Suit, the filing of the said Artharin Suit can not be questioned later on by any of the aforesaid parties (i.e. mortgagor/borrower/guarantor) on the ground that no auction was held by the Bank/Financial Institution before filing the Artharin Suit. .....Dr. Kazi Sirazul Islam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka and others (Spl. Original) 29 ALR (HCD) 59

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.

After complying with all legal formalities the possession of the auction properties has already been handed over to the auction purchaser and, as such, the petitioner has no ground at all to challenge the impugned auction process under section 12(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.
Since the possession of the auctioned property has already been handed over to the auction purchaser, the instant Rule has become infructuous and, as such, it is not necessary to examine the other merits of the case. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons as stated above, the High Court Division does not find any substances of this Rule. As a result, the Rule is discharged. .....Md. Ali Haider Shah -Vs.-The Government of Bangladesh and others (Spl. Original) 30 ALR (HCD) 161

As per section 48 of the Artha Rin-Adalat Ain, 2003 in counting days, only working days to be counted.
The auction notice that it was published on 21.05.2005 fixing 04.06.2005 for auction, i.e., giving only 12 working days in violation Artha Rin Adalat Ain, of the sections 12(4) and 33 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain.
The High Court Division held that the plaintiffs took loan of Tk. 8,00,000/- (Eight lac) from the defendant Bank on 19.01.2001 and for security against the said loan plaintiff appellants predecessor mortgaged their properties to the Bank and out of the loan amount part payment was made with interest and due to non-payment of some outstanding, the defendant bank put the mortgaged properties in auction on 21.05.2005 and the defendant No. 3 purchased the property at a price of Tk. 12,50,000/-. The plaintiffs came to know about the said auction on 02.07.2005 when they were threatened with dis¬possession and they filed the instant suit. It is an admitted fact that the auction took place in violation of sections 12,33 and 48 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. It is apparent on the face of the auction notice that it was published on 21.05.2005 fixing 04.06.2005 for auction, i.e., giving only 12 working days in violation Artha Rin Adalat Ain, of the sections 12(4) and 33 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, and as such the High Court Division finds substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the appellants and hence, the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed. .....Abul Khayer Mollah and others -Vs.- Agrani Bank Ltd (Civil) 18 ALR (HCD) 372-374

The bank in selling the properties of the borrower placed to the bank as security against loan ought to have acted fairly and reasonably at least in determining the value of the property upon obtaining information from the local registration office as indicated in sub-section (6) of section 12 of the Ain, publishing notice in accordance with the provision contained in section 33 (1) and 48 of the Ain and ensured due participation of the bidders from the members of the public so as to allow the borrower to be duly kept abreast with on transparent auction process and thereby to take necessary steps to protect their properties as necessary during such process. …..Sree Proshanta Kumar Sarkar -Vs.- MD, Agrani Bank Ltd. 3 ALR(2014)(1) 164

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

The above quoted provisions clearly speaks that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in the event of selling the property under this section, right and title of the properties shall vest in the purchaser and such sale cannot be questioned in any manner provided, however, that the borrower and or guarantors shall be entitled to claim compensation against the bank or financial institution in the event of finding any illegality or procedural irregularity in the auction sale. …..Sree Proshanta Kumar Sarkar -Vs.- MD, Agrani Bank Ltd. 3 ALR(2014)(1) 164

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

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

Writ petition is not maintainable against the private bank and if in such a case to attract the jurisdiction under Article 102 a device is taken by impleading the government a party that would be only a futile exercise. .....Mamun-ur-Rashid (Md) vs Secretary, Ministry of Law, 18 BLC 162.

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

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.

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.

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.

It appears that the provision of section 46 of the Ain, 2003 so far it relates to the question of filing the suit by the bank or financial institution against the borrower within specified time is directory and not at all mandatory and therefore, in any view of the matter, the suit is not barred by limitation. Thus, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the learned Judge of Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka. Hence, the Rule fails. .....Shahabuddin Khan (Md) vs Bangladesh, 14 BLC 111.

In the suit in hand the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 12 of Ain 2003 are not applicable as the instant suit being filed on 4-11-1999 there was no scope for compliance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of the section 12 of the Ain, 2003 which came into force on 10-3-2003 and further, the contents of the order dated 16-5-2003 passed in the instant suit reveals that the petitioner, though filed an application under section 49 of the Ain of 2003 praying for allowing him to repay the outstanding dues byinstallments but did not file any application before the Artha Rin Adalat praying for selling the mortgaged property in terms of sub-section (3) of section 12 of Ain 2003 and now, in the writ petition the petitioner, for the first time, tried to make out a case that the Artha Rin Adalat should have complied with the provision of sub-section (6) of section 12 of Ain, 2003. The High Court Division on due consideration of the materials on record and the law involved discharged the Rule. .....AQM Shah Alam Chowdhury vs Bangladesh, 13 BLC 122.

The Bank need/exhaust the procedure laid down under section 12(1)(2)(3) of the Ain before filing the suit. If plaintiff Bank does not follow the procedure then the procedure laid down in the section 12(6) and (7) of the Ain will come into operation. .....AB Bank Limited vs Khan Enterprise (Civil) 23 BLC 657

The petitioner being a defendant in the suit having not contested the same, preferring of the writ petition without availing the forum of appeal as provided under section 41 of the Ain or challenging the ex parte decree under section 19 of the Ain, the writ petition is not maintainable. .....KM Hamdor Rahman vs National Housing Finance & Investments Ltd, 12 BLC 578.

Sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Ain expressly dictates the Banks/Financial Institutions to sell the liened and pledged properties even after filing the Artha Rin Suit, in case of their failure to comply with the provisions of section 12(1) of the Ain, but no such imperative is provided in the law in the event of non-compliance of the provisions of section 12(3) of the Ain by the Banks/Financial Institutions as to their duty of selling or putting their best effort to sell the mortgaged and/or hypothecated properties.
By the provisions of sub-sections (1) & (3) of section 12 of the Ain the Legislature has imposed an obligation upon the Banks/Financial Institutions to sell or to put their best efforts to sell all the movable and immovable properties, which are liened or pledged or hypothecated or mortgaged against the loan money taken by the debtor upon conferring/vesting a power of selling in favour of the Banks/Financial Institutions. However, vide sub-sections (2) & (6) of section 12 of the Ain by providing certain alternative obligations, in case of non-compliance of the provisions of the two sub-sections (1) & (3), the obligations of the Banks/Financial Institutions as to selling or trying utmost to sell have been made directory in nature. .....Dr. Kazi Sirazul Islam vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 76 DLR 226.

While before filing Artharin Suit the Banks/Financial Institutions are competent to put a mortgaged/hypothecated property on auction for more than once, there is no scope for them (Banks/Financial Institutions) to invoke section 12(3) of the Ain for the second time during pendency of the Artharin Suit if they have truly failed to sell the mortgaged/ hypothecated property despite putting their best efforts before filing the Artharin Suit. And, when the Banks/Financial Institutions file Artharin Suit without invoking section 12(1) of the Ain, section 12(2) of the Ain directs them to invoke section 12(1) of the Ain during the trial of the suit, but in case of non-compliance of the provisions of section 12(3) of the Ain, there having no such provision in place similar to section 12(2) of the Ain, the Banks/Financial Institutions should not seek to invoke section 12(3) of the Ain after filing Artharin Suit, for, the Legislature has provided an alternative provision in section 12 (6) which dictates that the Adalat shall deduct the value of the mortgaged/hypothecated property from the decretal amount. .....Dr. Kazi Sirazul Islam vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 76 DLR 226.

After filing the Artharin Suit if the Banks/Financial Institutions or any other defendant of the Artharin Suit can satisfy the Adalat that proceeding of section 12(3) of the Ain was stopped or harnessed by the mortgagor or the owner of the hypothecated property, during pendency of the Artharin suit the Adalat shall be competent to restart the proceeding under section 12(3) of the Ain upon halting the trial for a certain limited period by publishing fresh notices stating the reasons thereof, inasmuch as a cunning device adopted by a wicked mortgagor should not be allowed to defeat the scheme of enactment of section 12(3) of the Ain. .....Dr. Kazi Sirazul Islam vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 76 DLR 226.

When a proceeding under section 12(3) of the Ain is intentionally frustrated by the mortgagor or by the owner of the hypothecated goods by filing an apparent meritless, fallacious and frivolous case/suit in any Court of law, the Adalat shall be competent to hold that the Bank's failure cannot by any stretch of imagination be covered within the expression “বিক্রয়ের চেষ্টা করিয়া ব্যর্থ না হইয়া, অর্থঋণ আদালতে কোন মামলা দায়ের করিবে না” as engraved in section 12(3) of the Ain. When the first auction under section 12(3) of the Ain by the Bank is frustrated by the mortgagor or borrower or guarantor by filing any case and, then, the Bank/Financial Institution files Artharin Suit, the filing of the Artharin Suit cannot be questioned later on by any of the parties (i.e. mortgagor/borrower/guarantor) on the ground that no auction was held by the Bank/Financial Institution before filing the Artharin Suit. .....Dr. Kazi Sirazul Islam vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 76 DLR 226.

The order fixing the date of auction and publishing the auction notices for sale of the mortgaged property without selling the pledged goods and adjustment of the sale proceeds against the outstanding loan was illegal. The Bank appears to be irresponsible and negligent in selling the pledged goods, and the loss incurred because of not selling the goods, should not be borne by the petitioner. It will be just and proper, if the value of the pledged tea, which was under control of the Bank at the time of instituting the suit, is adjusted. .....Mohammad Ali vs Bangladesh Bank, 20 BLC 512.

Artha Rin suit cannot be filed by any financial institution without selling of a mortgage property or any other institution first. Even if the suit has been filed wrongly or by mistake but in course of trial that has to be cured in terms of section 12(2) of Ain. Further section 12(3) of Ain provides that if owing any reason a suit cannot be filed by the financial institution even then a suit can well be filed afterwards without any restriction. Shakwat Hossain (Md) vs The Artha Rin Adalat No.2 Dhaka, 19 BLC 74.

In deciding the application under section 12(6) of the Ain in a execution proceeding the Adalat wrongly exceeded it limit by making uncall for observations beyond the decree. The court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree. .....Sonali Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 18 BLC 743.

The precondition of depositing 50% of the decretal amount is in the law since 1990. The point raised in this Writ Petition has also been challenged in various other cases under the previous law before this court and the issue has been settled by the High Court Division as well as by the Appellate Division in several decisions. It has already been settled that the Artha Rin Adalat is a Civil Court having all the powers and jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure subject to the provision of the said Artha Rin Adalat Ain. It has also been settled that said Ain provided that it is a civil Court with confined and limitation jurisdiction to deal with the Artha Rin cases and the law has been made for the purpose of realisation of money from the defaulting borrowers, accordingly the legislature has enacted such provision for depositing 50% of the decretal amount both in preferring appeal and in filing application against the ex parte decree. .....Anisur Rahman @ KM Ziaul Haque vs Government of Bangladesh, 12 BLC 22.

In case of an auction sale held illegally or with irregularity, the same cannot be challenged. However, the owner may sue the bank concerned for any loss, if suffered because of such illegal or irregular auction sale. .....Rex Apparels (Private) Limited vs Bangladesh, 21 BLC 395.

Absence of bank's legal power to sell the mortgaged property all the actions relating to sale of the same shall become void and will have no legal effect. Every action in the absence of such power shall fall apart. The protection given to the bank and the auction purchaser in section 12(8) does not override sections 12(1) and 12(3). This protection is only available when the bank has the legal right to sell the mortgaged property. .....A Hakim Gazi vs Md Nasiruddin, Assistant Vice President/Manager, 67 DLR 218.

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.

Since the property is being sold by the attorney agent of the petitioner to adjust the outstanding dues of the principal, the contention raised for the petitioner that the right to enjoy the property is being taken away under section 12 is untenable. .....Overseas Garments Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Bangladesh, 57 DLR 168.

Since the mortgaged property has already been sold having no issue of illegality or irregularity ever raised and the auction purchaser has already taken possession thereof vide registered sale deed executed by the bank as a legal very sale attorney of the mortgagor, so there is no scope to interfere with that very because no violation of the provision of section 12 of the Ain, has ever been made. .....Moniruzzaman (Md) vs Bangladesh, 68 DLR 255.

The compliance of provision of section 33(2) of Ain for the purpose of section 12 of the Ain even when read with sub-section 4, is not at all mandatory rather it is directory. .....Ramjan Ali Tarafder (Md) vs Bangladesh, 67 DLR 245.

Bank must have the power to sell the mortgaged property before it takes any step to proceed with the sale of the same under the section. .....A Hakim Gazi vs Md Nasiruddin, Assistant Vice President/Manager, 67 DLR 218.

Since the auction of the concerned property of the petitioner 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. .....Ramjan Ali Tarafder (Md) vs Bangladesh, 67 DLR 245.

The words "প্রাপ্ত ক্ষমতাবলে" used in section 12(8) read with sections 12(1) and 12(3) also suggest that the bank must have the legal power to sell the mortgaged property which is the condition precedent to take subsequent actions. .....A Hakim Gazi vs Md Nasiruddin, Assistant Vice President/ Manager, 67 DLR 218.

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

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.

The bank in selling the properties of the borrower placed to the bank as security against loan ought to have acted fairly and reasonably at least in determining the value of the property upon obtaining information from the local registration office as indicated in sub-section (6) of section 12 of the Ain, publishing notice in accordance with the provision contained in sections 33(1) and 48 of the Ain and ensured due participation of the bidders from the members of the public so as to allow the borrower to be duly kept abreast with on transparent auction process and thereby to take necessary steps to protect their properties as necessary during such process. .....Proshanta Kumar Sarkar vs Managing Director, Agrani Bank Ltd, 67 DLR 50.

When the Court deducted the price of land from the claim of the Bank under section 12(6) of the Ain, the title of the land shall vest in the Bank under section 33(7) of the Ain as per provision contained in section 12(7) the Court cannot deal with the mortgaged property in any manner whatsoever except issuance of a certificate of title under section 33(7) in favour of the Bank. .....Mukleshur Rahman vs Artha Rin Adalat, 68 DLR 205.

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.

Since there is specific restriction in section 12(8) of the Ain, which is a special law, to challenge auction sale by filing any suit, the question of lenient construction of the law does not arise. The special law enacted for certain purpose and it shall always prevail over the general law. Suit being barred under section 12(8) of the Ain, rejection of plaint is justified under Order VII, rule 11(d) read with section 151 of the Code. .....AM Mostafiz Meah vs United Commercial Bank Ltd, 68 DLR 302.

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.

Section 12— Writ petition is not maintainable against a private bank.
The High Court Division held that it is now settled principle of law that writ petition is not maintainable against a private bank. The issue is no longer a res integra. Therefore, the Rule issued in WP No. 3798 of 2015 so far as it relates to publication of auction notice dated 30.03.2015 by the respondent City Bank Ltd. in the newspaper under section 12 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 must fail. Rules issued in WP Nos. 3798, 4239 and 4243 of 2015 in respect of direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioners’ applications for restructuring of their loan liabilities must fail for the same reason so far as they relate to private banks. In respect of this part of the Rules relating to seeking a direction upon Bangladesh Bank in the form of writ of mandamus, suffice it to say that since no legitimate expectation or legal rights have accrued under the impugned Circular in favour of the petitioners, there has been no violation of any legal right of the petitioners by Bangladesh Bank in not considering the representations of the petitioners. So, this part of the Rules also must fail. However, High Court Division noted that the representations of the petitioners have not been disposed of by Bangladesh Bank. For the sake of fairness and justice Bangladesh Bank should dispose of the representations in accordance with law.Accordingly these Rules are discharged. …..Gazipur Paperboard Limited - Vs. - Bangladesh Bank and others (Spl. Original) 8 ALR (HCD) 137-145

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.

‘‘অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ ভিন্ন অন্য কোন উপায়ে আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠানসমূহ খেলাপী ঋণ আদায়ে তথা অনাদায়ী ঋণ আদায়ে ঋণ গ্রহীতার বিরুদ্ধে কোন কার্যক্রম গ্রহণ করতে আইনগত ভাবে অধীকারী নয়।
আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠানসমূহ সাধারণত পণ বা বন্ধক তথা স্থাবর ও অস্থাবর সম্পত্তি দায়বদ্ধ রেখে ঋণ প্রদান করেন। আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠান কর্তৃক প্রদত্ত ঋণ খেলাপী হলে আদায়ের জন্য আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠানসমূহ প্রথমেই অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ধারা ১২ মোতাবেক পণ, বন্ধক, স্থাবর কিংবা অস্থাবর সম্পত্তি বিক্রয় করে উক্ত ঋণ সমন্বয় করবেন। যদি উক্ত পণ, বন্ধক, স্থাবর কিংবা অস্থাবর সম্পত্তি বিক্রয় করে ঋণগ্রহীতার ঋণ সমন্বয়ের পরও কোন ঋণের অংশ অনাদায়ী থেকে থাকে তাহলে উক্ত অবশিষ্ট অনাদায়ী খেলাপী ঋণ আদায়ের জন্য আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠানসমূহ অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩-এ বর্ণিত পদ্ধতিতে অর্থঋণ আদালতে মোকাদ্দমা দায়ের করতে হবে। এটি সংসদ কর্তৃক প্রণীত আইন।’’ .....Mohammad Ali vs The State and others (Criminal) 26 ALR (HCD) 209

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

The law is simple, when the bank, before filing of the suit had placed the property on auction and the said process failed, it means that the said process of auction ended there. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Artha Rin Adalat cannot direct the decree holder bank to sell the property to the defendant judgment debtor who did not come forward to purchase the property at the price quoted in the auction held before filing of the suit. It is in this Court's opinion that when the Court deducted the price of land from the claim of the bank under Section 12(6) of the Ain, the title of the land shall vest in the bank under Section 33(7) of the Ain as per provision contained in Section 12(7). .....Md. Muklesur Rahman Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Ors 25BLT (HCD)357.

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

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

The petitioner being the defendants may still raise the question of liability which they did not raise at the time of framing of issues in the suit by filing an application under section 13 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and the Court may, on such application, adjudicate upon the question of liability of the present petitioners as issues of law. Prime Global Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat 11 BLC 236.

If there is no specific admission made in the written statement as contemplated in section 9(5) of the Ain, the Adalat cannot come to conclusion as regards the said fact of the case. .....Md Arfan uddin Akanda vs Artha Rin Adalat, 15. 15 BLT 345 343.

Section 13(3)— When the defendant in his written statement categorically denied the plaintiff’s case altogether and the plaintiff-bank did not file any appli¬cation for disposal of the suit as per provision of section 13(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 disposal the suit u/s 13(1) Artha Rin Adalat Ain is not maintainable.
The High Court Division observed that the suit should be decided by taking into consideration the case of both the parties and for the said purpose the parties will be permitted to adduce evidence both oral and documentary in support of their respective cases and the Artha Rin Adalat shall con¬sider all aspects of the suit and decide the suit afresh on the basis of the evidence and materials on record. …..BASIC Bank Ltd. Bogra Branch. -Vs.-M/S. Sarwar Enterprise and others. (Civil) 10 ALR (HCD) 3-6

Section 13(3)—বিবাদী তার লিখিত জবাবে কৌশলে বাদীর মামলা সম্পূর্ণ অস্বীকার এবং বাদী-ব্যাংক অর্থঋণ আদালতের ১৩(৩) ধারা অনুসারে মামলা নিষ্পত্তির আবেদন না করলে ধারা ১৩(১) এর অধীন মামলার বিচার সম্ভব না। হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ মনে করে, মামলার উভয়পক্ষের বক্তব্য বিবেচনায় নিবে এবং এতদউদ্দেশ্যে মামলার সমর্থনে উভয়পক্ষকে মৌখিক ও দালিলিক প্রমাণ উত্থাপনের সুযোগ দিয়ে মামলার সকল বিষয় বিবেচনা করে সাক্ষ্য-প্রমাণ ও নথির ভিত্তিতে মামলা নিষ্পত্তি করবে। …..BASIC Bank Ltd. Bogra Branch. -Vs.-M/S. Sarwar Enterprise and others. (Civil) 10 ALR (HCD) 3-6

Section 13(1)— Artha Rin Adalat Ain has empowered the Adalat concerned to deliver a judgment or order in an Artha Rin suit without framing issues if the Adalat, after examining the pleadings, is of the view that there is no necessity for framing issues. The Adalat can proceed and deliver judgment without framing issues or without trial if is found that the defendant in fact did not deny the claim of the plaintiff or admitted the claims of the plaintiff as regards liability of the defendant. .....Sankar Kumar Kundu vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Bogra (Spl Original), 25 BLC 124

Section 13(1)— আরজি পরীক্ষাপূর্বক অভিযোগ গঠনের প্রয়োজন না থাকলে অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন অনুসারে সংশ্লিষ্ট আদালত অভিযোগ গঠন ছাড়াই রায় ও আদেশ দিতে পারবে। যদি আদলতের নিকট প্রতীয়মান হয় যে, বিবাদী, বাদীর দাবী অস্বীকার করেনি অথবা বিবাদী তার সম্পর্কে বাদীর দাবীকে স্বীকার করেছে তাহলে অর্থঋণ আদালত অভিযোগ গঠন বা বিচার ছাড়াই রায়ের জন্য অগ্রসর হতে পারবে। .....Sankar Kumar Kundu vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Bogra (Spl Original), 25 BLC 124

Section 13– The petitioner being the defendants may still raise the question of liability which they did not raise at the time of framing of issues in the suit by filing an application under section 13 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and the court may, on such application, adjudicate upon the question of liability of the present petitioners as issues of law. .....Prime Global Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat, 11 BLC 236.
Section 13—The petitioner being the defendants may still raise the question of liability which they did not raise at the time of framing of issues in the suit by filing an application under section 13 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and the Court may on such application, adjudicate upon the question of liability of the present petitioners as issues of law. Prime Global Ltd. vs Joint District Judge and Lid Artha Rin Adalat No. 4, Dhaka., 11 BLC 236.

In order to pass judgment and decree under the provision the Adalat has to be satisfied that there is an admission by the concerned defendant over the claim so made by the plaintiff bank and to that effect the Bank is required to make an application. The legislature having used the word "এবং" after the words ‘‘বাদীর আরজির বক্তব্য স্বীকৃতি হইয়া থাকিলে’’ and উক্তরুপে স্বীকৃতির ভিত্তিতে যেরুপ রায় বা আদেশ পাইতে বাদী অধিকারী’’ madethose two requirements conjunctive. .....Tajuddin (Md) vs Bangladesh, 19 BLC 526.

The Court before passing any judgment or order of finally disposing of the suit shall have to take into consideration the facts stated in the plaint and written statement of the parties and to determine that whether the defendants admit the claim of the plaintiff and also to determine whether there is any dispute between the parties as regards the facts as stated in the pleadings. When the Adalat passed the impugned judgement beyond the scope of law as provided for in section 13 of the Ain then it can be said that the same is without jurisdiction. But when it appears from the impugned judgment that the same is passed upon compiling with the provision of section 13 it cannot be said that the same is without jurisdiction. .....Md. Arfan Uddin Akand vs Artha Rin Adalat, 15 BLT (2007) 343.

Impugned judgment and decree passed under section 13(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain—Held; if the Adalat passes any order which is wholly without jurisdiction, not in excess of jurisdiction, then despite of the fact that the law provided forum for appeal, the petitioner cannot be debarred from availing the jurisdiction under Article 102 of Constitution. .....Md. Arfan uddin Akand vs. Artha Rin Adalat, 15 BLT 343.

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.

If the subject matter of the plaint is admitted in the written statement and if the plaintiff filed an application praying for passing judgment under section 13(3) of the Ain, and then the Adalat shall dispose of the suit by its judgment or order under the provisions of section 13(3) of the Ain, in a summary manner without waiting for deciding other issues raised by the parties in the suit. The Ain, is a special law, the Adalat has been given power to dispose of the case in a summary manner subject to file an application by the plaintiff to dispose of the suit as per provision of section 13(3) of the Ain. .....BASIC Bank Ltd VS Sarwar Enterprise, 69 DLR 559.

When there is no dispute against claim under the plaint or in other words, pleadings do not disclose any dispute, in that context only, the provision of section 13(4) can be exercised by the Adalat.
But here the defendant petitioner is contesting the suit raising objection to the plaintiff's claim. Although Audit report supports the plaint's claim but it is subject to proof under adjudication through trial. Thus, there was no circumstances in the suit to pass the decree under section 13(4) of the Act, 2003 and, as such, the decree was passed beyond the scope of law. Secondly, passing the decree exercising section 13(4) of the Ain, the Adalat exceeded it's authority which is without jurisdiction and definitely, a legal error apparent on the face of record. Thirdly, inspite of unambiguous facts involved in the case as to applicability of an unambiguous law, the wrong done was apparent illegal, it is malice in law. .....Younus Bhuiyan vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 76 DLR 234.

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

Sections 15, 33(1) and 48—The language employed in section 48 of the Ain, 'for computation of the days under law (এই আইনের অধীন দিবস গণনার ক্ষেত্রে) and thereby generalising the method of counting the time frame with reference to the judges' working days does not fit in the functional aspect of the trial of a case which requires compliance by others also e.g. process server, nazarate, parties etc. Upon applying the ratio of the case of Md Rafiqul Islam Faruq vs Government of Bangladesh reported in VIII ADC 439 in conjunction with the ratio laid down in the case of Peninsular Shipping Service vs Faruq paint 59 DLR (AD) 26 in the present case, the inevitable conclusion at which we are led to arrive is that 15 (fifteen) days time, as provided in section 33(1) of the Ain, was complied with. .....Salahuddin vs Government of Bangladesh, 69 DLR 454.

Sections 15, 33(1) and 48— আইনের ৪৮ ধারায় বর্ণিত দিবস গণনার ভাষা এবং বিচারকের জন্য সময় গণনার জন্য পদ্ধতির সাধারণীকরণের মাধ্যমে নির্ধারিত কার্যদিবস বিচারের কার্যক্রমের সঙ্গে সঙ্গতিপূর্ণ নয়। কারণ অন্যদের যেমন, প্রসেস সার্ভার, নারাজি ও পক্ষদ্বয়কেও নির্ধারিত সময়কে পরিপালন করতে হয়। Md Rafiqul Islam Faruq vs Government of Bangladesh reported in VIII ADC 439 সঙ্গে Peninsular Shipping Service vs Faruq paint 59 DLR (AD) 26 মামলার সিদ্ধান্ত প্রয়োগ করে আমরা অনিবার্য সিদ্ধান্তে পৌছাচ্ছি যে, বর্তমান মামলায় ৩৩(১) ধারায় বর্ণিত ১৫ দিন সময় পরিপালন করা হয়েছে। .....Salahuddin vs Government of Bangladesh, 69 DLR 454.

The period prescri­bed for disposal of Artha Rin suit as laid down in section 17 of the Ain, 2003 is merely directory and not mandatory. So, there is no legal mandate to stop or dismiss the Artha Rin suit if the trial of the same be not concluded within the period of 90 days and further extended period of 30 days. The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 has been promul­gated by the Parliament incorporating different provisions including stipulated period of disposal of the suit. The only purpose is for speedy disposal of the suit, otherwise the defaulting borrowers of the financial institutions with their best efforts will cause delay in the process of trial. .....Bangladesh German Food (Pvt) Ltd vs Bangladesh, 14 BLC 266.

Sections 17(1)(2)— অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ১৭ ধারায় বর্ণিত নিষ্পত্তির সময় নির্দেশনামূলক মাত্র এবং বাধ্যতামূলক নয়। ফলে প্রথমে ৯০ দিন পরবর্তীতে বর্ধিত ৩০ দিনের মধ্যে অর্থঋণ সম্পর্কিত মামলা শেষ করার আইনি বাধ্যবাধকতা নেই। আইনসভা ২০০৩ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালত আইনে বিভিন্ন বিধান সংযুক্তকরণ সহ মামলা নিষ্পত্তিতে সময় নির্ধারণ করে দিয়েছে আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠানের ঋণখেলাপি কর্তৃক মামলা বিলম্বের প্রচেষ্টা হতে দ্রুত নিষ্পত্তির জন্য। .....Bangladesh German Food (Pvt) Ltd vs Bangladesh, 14 BLC 266.

Section 17(1)(2)—Section 17(1)(2) of the Ain albeit provided time limit to conclude the trial firstly within 90 days, if not, extend the period for further period of 30 days, if not concluded within the aforesaid period; the Ain does not provide any consequential effect or procedure or resulting use of the suit and, as such, the time limit as provided under section 17(1)(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain is not mandatory as it has no consequential effect or resulting use laid down in the Act itself even if the suit is not disposed of within the time limit. Artha Rin Adalat is a civil Court having limited jurisdiction. Instant suit was filed in 1989 and it has crossed Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 and now continuing under the provisions of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and by the law it is the intention of the legislature to dispose of the suit on merit and also with an intention to dispose of the suit expeditiously or on priority basis and, as such, the provisions as laid down in section 17 of the Ain is merely directory one. .....Jewel Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd vs Bangladesh, 13 BLC 572.

Section 17(1)(2)—আইনের ১৭(১)(২) ধারায় প্রথমত বিচার শেষ করার জন্য ৯০ দিন নির্ধারণ করা হয়েছে এবং উক্ত সময়ের মধ্যে শেষ না হলে পরবর্তী ৩০ দিন সময় বর্ধিত করা যায়। এই সময়ের মধ্যেও বিচার শেষ না হলে তার আনুষঙ্গিক প্রভাব বা পদ্ধতি বা মামলার ভবিষ্যত সম্পর্কে কিছু বলা হয়নি। আইনের ১৭(১)(২) ধারায় বর্ণিত বিধান বাধ্যতামূলক না বিধায় বর্ণিত সময় সীমার মধ্যে বিচারকার্য শেষ না হলে তার আনুষঙ্গিক প্রভাব বা ফল নেই। অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন দেওয়ানি আদালত হওয়ায় এখতিয়ায় সীমিত। মামলাটি ১৯৮৯ সালে দায়ের করা হয়েছিল এবং যা ১৯৯০ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালত আইনকে অতিক্রম করে বিদ্যমান ২০০৩ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালত আইনের বিধানের অধীন বিচারাধীন। এই আইনে আইসভার অভিপ্রায় ছিল মামলার ধরন অনুসারে দ্রæত ও অগ্রাধিকারের ভিত্তিতে নিষ্পত্তি করা এবং আইনের ১৭ ধারার বিধান নির্দেশনামূলক মাত্র। .....Jewel Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd vs Bangladesh, 13 BLC 572.

Section 18(1)— Any amount of money misappropriated by any officer or employee of the bank cannot be treated as a loan and realised through the Court under the Ain.
The High Court Division held that it is the aver¬ments of the plaintiff-respondent bank that the defendant-petitioner has fraudulently withdrawn the excess profit against his MTDR accounts in collusion with the defendant No. 2, a junior officer of the bank, which contemplates that the petitioner has misappropriated the excess profit in collusion with an officer of the bank. This contemplation also gets support from the submission made by the respondent bank in its Affidavit-in-Opposition “the defect in filing the suit under section 18(1) of the Artho Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 can easily be cured by filing an amendment application at any stage of the trial.” Therefore, the amount of money misappropriated or fraudulently withdrawn by the petitioner in collusion with an officer of the bank cannot be realised upon treating the same as loan through the Court under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. Accordingly, the Court established under the Ain has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suit. In view of the discussions made above, the suit being hopelessly barred by li¬mitation and beyond the jurisdiction of the Court established under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. .....Kazi Mohammad Mofizur Rahman -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and others (Spl. Original) 15 ALR (HCD) 243-257

Section 18(1)— ব্যাংকের অফিসার বা কর্মচারী কর্তৃক আত্মসাৎকৃত এবং আদালতের মাধ্যমে এই আইনের অধীন আদায়কৃত অর্থকে ঋণ হিসাবে বিবেচনা করা যাবে না। হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ মনে করে, বাদী ব্যাংকের বক্তব্য ছিল ২ নং বিবাদী ব্যাংকের জুনিয়র অফিসারের যোগসাজশে এমটিডিআর একাউন্ট হতে প্রতারণামূলকভাবে অতিরিক্ত লভ্যাংশ উত্তোলন করে আত্মসাৎ করেছে। অভিযোগের বিষয়ে বাদী ব্যাংকের হলফনামায় দাখিলকৃত বক্তব্য হতে সত্যতা পাওয়া যায়। সে কারণে আত্মসাৎকৃত অর্থ বা পিটিশনার কর্তৃক ব্যাংকের অফিসারের যোগসাজশে প্রতারণমূলকভাবে উত্তোলিত ঋণ বিবেচনায় অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর অধীন আদায় করা যাবে না। ফলে এই আইনের অধীন আদালতের মামলা নিষ্পত্তির এখতিয়ার নেই। উপরোক্ত আলোচনা ভিত্তিতে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ মনে করে, মামলাটি আশাহতভাবে তামাদি দ্বারা বারিত এবং এই আইনের অধীন প্রতিষ্ঠিত অর্থঋণ আদালতের এখতিয়ার বহির্ভূত। .....Kazi Mohammad Mofizur Rahman -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and others (Spl. Original) 15 ALR (HCD) 243-257

As per section 18 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, no case filed in the Artha Rin Adalat can be transferred to any other Court for analogous hearing or any other suit can be brought to this Court for analogous hearing with the suit filed in the Artha Rin Adalat and it is settled law that Artha Rin Adalat is not a full-fledged Civil Court. It has been created by special enactment only for recovery of the defaulted loan. It has got no power to adjudicate any other matters. .....Oriental Bank Ltd vs Sitara Siddiq, 59 DLR 573.

Section 18— অর্থঋণ আদালত আইনের ১৮ ধারার বিধান অনুসারে এই আইনের অধীন দায়েরকৃত কোনো মামলা অন্যকোনো আদালতে অনুরূপ শুনানির জন্য স্থানান্তর করা যাবে না এবং অন্যকোনো মামলা এই আইনের অধীন অর্থঋণ আদালতে অনুরূপ শুনানির জন্য প্রেরণ করা যাবে না এবং অর্থঋণ আদালত পরিপূর্ণ দেওয়ানি আদালত নয়। খেলাপি ঋণ আদায়ের জন্য বিশেষ উদ্দেশ্যে অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন প্রণয়ন করা হয়েছে। এই আইনে অন্যকোনো মামলা নিষ্পত্তির এখতিয়ার নেই। .....Oriental Bank Ltd vs Sitara Siddiq, 59 DLR 573.

Any amount of money misappropriated by any officer or employee of the bank cannot be treated as a loan and realised through the Court under the Ain. Kazi Md Mofizur Rahman vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 24 BLC 431

Rupali Bank Ltd. instituted title suit against the defendant petitioner and the suit was decreed in preliminary form on contest on 1-6-97 and the preliminary decree was sealed and signed on the same date. On 24-4-2003, the decree holder made an application for an Order making the preliminary decree dated 1-6-97 final. The application was allowed by the Artha Rin Adalat and on the said date the final decree was sealed and signed. Held: In a writ of certiorari writ cannot be issued to correct the mistake or wrong done in exercise of the power under the CP Code but in instance case the Artha Rin Adalat passed the impugned order and exercised its power going beyond the statutory period of limitation which cannot be otherwise excluded and as such the order is without jurisdiction and is liable to be struck down. .....M/s Brick Linkers Ltd vs Joint District Judge, 15 BLT (2007) 99.

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.

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

In view of the overwhelming evidence regarding the arrival of the goods and after releasing the same kept in the Bank's godown for 9 years had to sell the same in public auction and Bank informed his client regularly in each stage, it can not be accepted the contention that the defendants were not aware of all these things. The plaint of other Suit No. 2 of 1994 shows that the defendants set up a counter claim of more than Taka Fifty Lac and some odds. Apparently nature of claims were baseless and there is hardly any foundation in the evidence as well. The defendants' suit of compensation and damages as set up in other Suit No. 2 of 94 has got no merit. The learned Judge of the Artha Rin Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain other Suit No. 2 of 1994 under general law along with the Money Suit filed by the financial institution under the Special law. Under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, Section 18 (2) also stands as a clear bar to entertain any suit or counter claim against the claim of the financial institution. The learned Judge of the Artha Rin Adalat assumed illegal jurisdiction over the said other suit and held the trial of the civil suit without having any jurisdiction. Keeping consistency with the section 50(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat, 2003 simple interest was awarded at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount from the date of filing the suit till realization subject to maximum payable under section 47 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 meaning thereby the simple interest payable shall not exceed 200% of the original claim. .....Pubali Bank Ltd. Vs. M/S Amin Iqbal Corporation and others. (Civil) 1 LNJ 455

Without taking any such step under section 19 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 subsequently filing of a separate suit on the ground of fraud practices upon the court is not maintainable in view of section 20 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. Further more there is a provision of filing appeal and revision against any order or judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge of the Artha Rin Adalat in view of section 41 and 42 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. Plaintiff appellant apparently ignoring the provision of section 19 and 41 instituted a separate suit against the impugned judgment and decree which is absolutely barred by section 20 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. ...Jafri Soap and Chemical Ind. & ors Vs. Agrani Bank & ors, (Civil), 5 SCOB [2015] HCD 79 ....View Full Judgment

When in an Artharin suit the defendant-side would not participate in the hearing, what would the Adalat do with the written statement? The normal presumption would be that by his non-participation in the hearing he was not placing before the Adalat his claims, which were raised in the written statements. And keeping this scenario in mind, the Legislature made the provision in Section 19(1) of the Ain, 2003 for the Adalat to dispose of the suit exparte (একতরফাসূত্র). The expression “একতরফাসূত্র” in Section 19(1) of the Ain, 2003 has been purposefully employed debarring the Adalat from considering the defendant’s case. ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140 ....View Full Judgment

Whether the Artharin Adalats should go for ex-parte disposal; From the language employed in Section 19(1) of the Ain, 2003, the literal meanings of the language gives us two situations, namely; on the date of hearing if the defendant does not register his/her presence before the Adalat by filing Hazira (আদালতে অনুপস্হিত থাকিলে) or if after recording his/her presence in paper, s/he is found absent when the case is taken up for hearing (ডাকিয়া বিবাদিকে উপস্হিত পাওয়া না গেলে), to proceed towards disposal of a case exparte. However, the spirit that derives from the provision of Section 19(1) of the Ain, 2003 is that if the Adalat finds that the manner and style of conducting the case by the defendant is to avoid or refrain from hearing (শুনানী না করা), the Adalat should go for exparte disposal of the suit. ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140 ....View Full Judgment

The Legislature has eased the task of restoration of an Artharin suit for an alleged loandefaulter by incorporating the above provisions. Because of the percentage of deposit being only 10% of the decretal amount, the time-limitation of filing the application being sufficient (30 days from the date of knowledge of passing the exparte decree plus further 15 days for deposit) and the mode of payment being flexible, for, it is permissible to pay in cash or submit bank draft, pay order, cheque and any other negotiable instrument, it would not be irrational to view these conditions as affordable for an aggrieved party. ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140 ....View Full Judgment

For application of the above expression in an exparte disposal situation, when the word “বা” (or) would be read as the disjunctive one, an unworkable situation would arise for the Adalat. Because, in that event the Adalat shall have to consider either the plaint only or the written statement only in the backdrop of impossibility of disposal of a suit solely on the basis of written statement. Furthermore, disposal of a suit solely based on the written statement will render the provisions of Section 19(6) of the Ain, 2003 nugatory. ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140

Section 19(6)— একতরফা নিষ্পত্তির আবেদনের ক্ষেত্রে ‘বা’ শব্দটি বিয়োজক হিসাবে বিবেচনা করলে আদালতের জন্য অকার্যকর পরিস্থির সৃষ্টি হয়। কারণ ঐ পরিস্থিতে শুধুমাত্র আরজি বা মামলা নিষ্পত্তি জটিল হওয়ার ক্ষেত্রে লিখিত জবাবকে বিবেচনা করতে হতো। আবার শুধুমাত্র লিখিত জবাবের ভিত্তিতে মামলা নিষ্পত্তি অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ১৯(৬) ধারার বিধানকে অকার্যকর করবে। ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140 ....View Full Judgment

Date of knowledge about the exparte decree— The judgment-debtor, fought challenging the said impugned exparte decree up to appellate division of this court and there is no reason to believe that the petitioner, being wife of this judgment-debtor, could not know about that exparte decree and also about the sale of their property in question within such a long period.
The High Court Division set aside the judgment and order of the appellate court below and restored those of the trial court mainly on the finding that the summons/notice of the original suit was not served upon the petitioner. The High Court Division though held that the said miscellaneous case was filed within 30 days from the date of the petitioner's knowledge, about the exparte judgment and decree but did not discuss or decide what was the exact date of knowledge of the petitioner about the exparte decree in question. Admittedly, the petitioner was the wife of the judgment-debtor and she has claimed that she got the property in question from her husband judgment- debtor by oral gift. In these facts and circumstances, in the absence of any cogent evidence it is hard to believe that this petitioner could not know about the exparte decree in question within a long period of nine years. The High Court Division, has committed wrong and illegality also in making the Rule absolute setting aside the judgment and order of the appellate court below and restoring those of the trial court. .....Janata Bank Limited =VS= Hosne Ara Hoque Khan, (Civil), 2024(2) [17 LM (AD) 91] ....View Full Judgment

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

Sections 19 and 42— অর্থ ঋণ আদালত আইনের ১৯ এবং ৪২ ধারা তথা জারী পর্যায় নিলাম রদের জন্য দাখিলী বিবিধ মামলাসমূহের চূড়ান্ত আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে বিবিধ আপীল রক্ষণীয় এবং অর্থ ঋণ মোকদ্দমা হতে উদ্ভূত জারী মোকদ্দমার সকল অন্তর্বর্তীকালীন আদেশের বিররুদ্ধে আপীল বা রিভিশন গ্রহণযোগ্য নয়। .....Abdul Mannan Rauf (Md) vs Bangladesh (Spl Original), 73 DLR 237

Ex parte decree–
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. It is our 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. The judgement and order of the High Court Division is hereby set aside. The artha rin miscellaneous case is sent back to the Artha Rin Adalat, First Court, Chittagong, where the appellant (defendant No.8) is to be given an opportunity to prove her knowledge as contemplated in section 19(2)of the Ain by adducing evidence. The Artha Rin Adalat is directed to dispose of the miscellaneous case within four months of receipt of this judgement. .....Dilruba Morshed (Mrs.) =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 104]

Section 19 (2)(3) & (4)––একতরফা ডিক্রি- 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? এতদসংক্রান্ত বিষয় আদালতে পক্ষদ্বয় কর্তৃক উত্থাপিত সাক্ষ্য দ্বারা প্রমাণিত হবে। আপীল বিভাগের পর্যবেক্ষণ হলো বিবাদী বিষয়টি সম্পর্কে জ্ঞাত ছিল বলে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ মনেকরে। যদিও তার নিয়োজিত আইনজীবীর ধারণা 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? সে বিষয় নিশ্চিত হওয়ার জন্য কোনো রেকর্ডকৃত সাক্ষ্য নেই। ফলে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের প্রদত্ত রায় ও আদেশ বাতিল করা হয়। অর্থঋণ আইনের অধীন দায়েরকৃত মামলাটি ১নং অর্থঋণ আদালত, চট্টগ্রামে ফেরত পাঠানো হয়। যেখানে আপীলকারীকে (৮নং বিবাদী) ১৯(২) ধারার বিধানুসারে সাক্ষ্য দ্বারা মামলা সম্পর্কে জ্ঞাত হওয়ার বিষয়টি প্রমাণের সুযোগ দিতে হবে। ফলে অর্থঋণ আদালতকে মিস কেসটির এই রায় পাওয়ার চার মাসের মধ্যে মামলা নিষ্পত্তির নির্দেশ দেওয়া হলো। .....Dilruba Morshed (Mrs.) =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 104] ....View Full Judgment

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

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

Legal notice
Section 19(2) of the Ain does not expressly prescribe for issuance of any notice upon the decree-holder plaintiff to show cause in determining the correctness of the date of knowledge but it is the established principle of law that even when a statute is silent, notice has to be given if any person is sought to be affected in his right, interest, property or character. …..Pubali Bank Ltd, Principal Branch, 26, Dilkusha C/A, Motijheel, Dhaka.-Vs.-The Government Bangladesh and others. 4 ALR 2014(2) 341

Any application is competent under section 19 if it is filed with 10% of deposit as required under the section. The provision cannot be said to be violative of fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed by Article 27, 31, 40 and 42 of the Constitution. .....Mohiuddin Mahmood vs Bangladesh, 17 BLC 531.

If any party is aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Adalat he may prefer appeal against the same as per specific provisions of the Ain and in case of ex-parte decree, the judgment debtor may prefer an application under section 19 of the Ain, for setting-aside the ex-parte decree upon deposit of certain amount as per the provisions of law. The suit filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Adalat was expressly barred by specific provisions of both old and new Ain. .....Assistant Director, Agricultural Extension vs Sonali Bank, 20 BLC 536.

The statutory requirement to deposit legal requirements particularly in case of Artha Rin Adalat being a special law is mandatory. There cannot be any escape from fulfillment of legal necessity as envisaged in section 19 or likewise section 41 of the Ain. .....Mohiuddin Mahmood Bangladesh 17 BLC 531.

If the Adalat finds that the manner and style of conducting the case by the defendant is to avoid or refrain from hearing (শুনানি না করে), the Adalat should go for exparte disposal of the suit. .....Osman Gazi Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat, 21 BLC 322.

The Legislature made the provision in section 19(1) of the Ain, 2003 for the Adalat to dispose of the suit ex-parte (একতরফাসূত্রে).The expression "(একতরফাসূত্রে)" in section 19(1) of the Ain, 2003 has been purposefully employed debarring the Adalat from considering the defendant's case. .....Osman Gazi Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat, 21 BLC 322.

Section 19(2)—Because of the percentage of deposit being only 10% of the decretal amount, the time-limitation of filing the application being sufficient (30) days from the date of knowledge of passing the exparte decree plus further 15 days for deposit) and the mode of payment being flexible, for, it is permissible to pay in cash or submit bank draft, pay order, cheque and any other negotiable instrument, it would not be irrational to view these conditions as affordable for an aggrieved party. .....Osman Gazi Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat, 21 BLC 322.
Section 19(2)—Since the Ain, 2003 is a special law with an overriding provision over other laws and has prescribed a special procedure, there is no scope to bypass the appellate forum, if the forum under section 19(2) of the Ain, 2003 against an exparte decree is already not availed of by the party. .....Osman Gazi Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat, 21 BLC 322.

The petitioner can only get any relief if, and only if, the petitioner did not have any knowledge as to the exparte decree or as to the Jari Case. Either by herself or through her constituted attorney would be sufficient for knowledge of the case which have given her to file an application under sub-section (2) within 30 days from knowledge for filing an application for setting aside the exparte decree. .....Dilruba Morshed vs Artha Rin Adalat, 17 BLC 98.

When facts are intentionally misrepresented or where a false statement is made intentionally, with the knowledge that it is false, with a view to deceive the other party, it is known as fraud. In the present case, it is clear that the respondents had knowledge of the ex-parte decree at least in the year of 2009, which is clearly suppression of facts and amounts to committing fraud upon the Court. .....Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited vs Al-Mozadded Shipping Lines Co. (Civil) 24 BLC 231

To exercise jurisdiction under section 19 of the Ain, the Adalat will have to have both the jurisdictional facts before it, namely the application has to be filed within 30 days and deposit of 10% of the decretal amount within 15 days from the application. .....Prime Global Ltd vs Artha Ain Adalat, 65 DLR 205

The petitioner ought to have resorted to section 19 of Ain for setting-aside the ex-parte decree which he did not do. Even in the whole process of execution case he did not turn up. All on a sudden after the impugned order was issued realization came to the petitioner and he rushed directly before this Division. This Division would be loath to sit as a Court of appeal in writ certiorari. So far compliance of section 33(7) as assailed by the petitioner we are not at all impressed with the submission. It has no substance being fallacious one. .....Azizur Rahman (Md) vs Bangladesh, 65 DLR 31.

The deposit was a legal deposit and perfect in all respect and the petitioner was entitled to have the miscellaneous case registered under section 19 of the Ain to set aside the ex-parte decree. .....Mizanur Rahman (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 71 DLR 454

The decree was passed without any service of summons or even without any attempt to do so. As such, it is a nullity in the eye of law and it is imperative upon any Court of law, to hold so, even without invoking the provisions of section 19 of the Ain or Rule 13 of Order IX of the Code. Because Rule 13 envisages at least a service, even if not 'duly' and sub-section (1) of section 19 also envisages a service of summons upon the defendant.
Since on the admitted facts that the ex-parte decree against the defendant No. 2 is a nullity, the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division cannot be sustained. .....Sonali Bank Limited vs Prime Global Limited, 63 DLR (AD) 99.

Section 19(1) puts a clear bar to consider the case of defendant, as evident from the word "একতরফাসূত্রে" This bar may appear to be unfair compared to the advantage given to the plaintiff under section 19(6). But the legislative intent as reflected in section 19(1) cannot be interpreted otherwise than by applying the literal rule of interpretation, which requires that when language is clear, it has to be followed unless it results in an absurdity. Undoubtedly 'unfair' and 'absurd' do not bear the same meaning or consequence. .....Enayetur Rahman vs Bangladesh, 64 DLR 116.

Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 is a special law with an overriding provision over other laws and has prescribed a special procedure which is mandatory in nature. Before passing an ex-parte judgment and decree the trial Court has to be satisfied the following requirements that the date was fixed for ex-parte hearing and the defendant does not appear on that day or the defendant is not found present after he was called.
Trial Court below for the first time fixed the date for an ex-parte hearing, and on that day the petitioner appeared before the trial Court along with an application prayed for time to submit the written statement, which was rejected and thereby passed the ex-parte judgment and decree on the same day in presence of the petitioner. It is crystal clear that in violation of the mandatory provision of section 19(1) of the Ain 2003, the ex-parte judgment and decree has been passed and, as such, it is a nullity in the eye of the law. .....Mosarrof Hosen vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 76 DLR 30

Section 19(2)—Section 19(2) of the Ain does not expressly prescribe for issuance of any notice upon the decree-holder to show cause in determining the correctness of the date of knowledge but it is the established principle of law that even when a statute is silent, notice has to be given if any person is sought to be affected in his right, interest, property or character. Pubali Bank Ltd vs Bangladesh,66 DLR 317.
Section 19(2)—Unless the other requirement as to limitation under section 19(2) of the Ain is complied with, the Adalat has no scope to allow the application, irrespective of the fact that the defendant deposited 10% of the decretal dues. .....Pubali Bank Ltd vs Bangladesh, 66 DLR 317.

The Adalat has to be satisfied that the application has been filed properly within the limitation as prescribed in section 19(2) of the Ain and also in compliance with section 19(3) of the Ain (deposit of 10% of the decretal dues) and that in determining such limitation period particularly the correctness of the date of knowledge as per requirement of section 19(2) of the Ain, notice has to be served upon the plaintiff. .....Pubali Bank Ltd vs Bangladesh, 66 DLR 317.

A bare reading of the provisions of Ain gives a clear understanding that right after passing of the exparte decree or from the date of knowledge of the exparte decree if within 30 days as per sub-section (3) of section 19 by depositing 10% of the decreetal amount an application is filed for restoration of the suit after setting-aside the exparte decree, the suit will automatically restored in terms of section 19(4) of Ain. .....Bangladesh Development Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Jessore, 66 DLR 1.

For a registration of a miscellaneous case to set aside an ex-parte decree, it is required to deposit 10% of the decreetal amount either by cash or bank draft, pay order or by other method permissible under Negotiable Instrument Act as security. On the other hand the petitioner deposited 25% of the outstanding amount under section 34(6) of the Ain which is much more then the decretal amount. The petitioners for the purpose of releasing himself, under section 34(6) deposited 25% of the outstanding amount and was enlarged on bail. Therefore, by legal fiction we can hold that he has also deposited more then 10% as required under section 19(3) of the Ain. The law is clear that 10% of the decreetal amount is needed to register a miscellaneous case under section 19(3) of the Ain. Unhesitatingly, we can hold that it was absolutely a legal deposit to meet up legal necessity within the meaning of section 19(3) of the Ain. The deposit must be treated as a valid one under the same provision of law. .....Mizanur Rahman (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 71 DLR DLR 454

The condition of depositing security has been imposed by the legislature to prevent frivolous claim so is generally made with a view to delay completion of execution proceeding. However, protection has been given to the decree-holder under section 32(4) from such kind of claim. .....Atiqun Nessa vs Government of Bangladesh (Spl Original) 74 DLR 204

Legislature never intended that by operation of section 19(4) of Ain application of this kind can also be restored without deciding the question of knowledge in a given situation. .....Bangladesh Development Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Jessore, 66 DLR 1.

Artha Rin Adalat in Artha Rin Suit Passed ex parte judgment and decree against the dated on 22.03.2009-on defendants 11.01.2012 defendants filed Miscellaneous case under section 19(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003-Artha Rin Adalat allowed the Miscellaneous case and restored the Artha Rin Suit by the impugned order dated 16.01.12
Held; Admittedly, it is found from the materials available on record that the respondents were very much aware of the exparte decree dated 22.03.2009 in Artha Rin Suit No. 619 of 2008 as far back as at least in the year 2009 contrary to their claim of date of knowledge that they knew nothing about the suit as well as the decree until 01.01.2012, which is abundantly clear that it is suppression of fact and amounts to fraud upon the court. In the present case, the defendant filed the Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 2012 on 11.01.2012 which is clearly beyond 30 days of passing the ex-parte decree dated 22.03.2009. It appears from the impugned order dated 16.01.2012 that the learned Judge of the Adalat, only consider one requirement of Section 19 of the Ain of depositing of 10% decreetal amount by the defendant but did not at all consider anything regarding the question of limitation i.e. whether the case is filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge. Furthermore, as per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which confers a duty upon the Court to see as to whether the suit/application is filed within time or not even if the issue of limitation has not been pressed, the court is legally bound to see and decide such issue in disposing of the matter before it When facts are intentionally misrepresented or where a false statement is made intentionally, with the knowledge that it is false, with a view to deceive the other party, it is known as fraud. In the present case, it is clear that the respondents had knowledge of the ex-parte decree at least in the year of 2009, which is clearly suppression of facts and amounts to committing fraud upon the Court the Adalat has committed wrong in passing the impugned order dated 16.01.2012 without deciding the question of limitation, which is a non speaking order and erroneous and should be interfered with as fraud has been committed upon the court. Thus we find merit in the Appeal. .....Islami Bank Bd. Ltd. Ors Vs. Al-Mozadded Shipping Lines Co. & Ors 27BLT(HCD)365.

Except the provision of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, no question shall be raised before any court or authority about any pending proceeding in Artha Rin Adalat or its order, judgment or degree. As the judgment or degree of the Artha Rin Adalat is final and the same cannot be questioned in any court under any separate proceeding the plaintiff's suit is impliedly barred by specific provision of Artha Rin Adalat Ain. .....Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd. VS Mr. Md. Salauddin and others (Civil) 1 LNJ 1

The reason for inscribing the provisions of depositing money and approaching the trial Court within a stipulated time for set-ting aside an exparte decree in the Ain, 2003 is to oblige the loanees to co-operate with the Adalat in disposing of the suits timely and, thereby, warn them not to play foul with the Adalat. The above preconditions have been put upon the loanees with an aim to discourage the defaulters not to play dilatory tactics in disposal of the Artharin suits. All that the Legislature in-tended is to minimise the abuse of the process of the Court in the garb of filing a restoration application, for, without depositing money, the unscrupulous litigants were approaching the Adalat indiscriminately compelling the Courts to engage in the fruitless matters. Faizun Nabi Chowdhury -Vs.- The Judge Artharin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka and others. (Spl. Original) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 115 ....View Full Judgment

No form of word seeking to limit the jurisdiction of the ordinary court protects a nullity. A judgment-debtor not concerned with the loan either as borrower, mortgagor or guarantor is not precluded by the ouster clause from protecting his pro­perty by resort to ordinary civil court. Per M. Moazzam Husain J (dissenting). Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd vs Md. Salauddin 16 BLC 277.

Without the provisions of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 any question regarding any proceedings initiated or any order, judgment or decree passed by the Judge of the Artha Rin Adalat cannot be raised in any court or to any authority and no court or authority will take cognizance or accept any application praying for any remedy filed in any court or authority ignoring the said provisions of section 20 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. ...Jafri Soap and Chemical Ind. & ors Vs. Agrani Bank & ors, (Civil), 5 SCOB [2015] HCD 79

Section 20— অর্থঋণ আইন, ২০০৩ এর বিধান ব্যতীত অর্থঋণ আদালতের বিচার প্রক্রিয়া সম্পর্কে বা কোনো আদেশ বা রায়ের বিরুদ্ধে কোনো আদালতে বা কোনো কর্তৃপক্ষের নিকট বা কোনো আদালত বা কোনো কর্তৃপক্ষ অভিযোগ আমলে নিবেনা বা প্রতিকারের জন্য দায়েরকৃত আবেদন কোনো আদালত গ্রহণ করবে না অথবা আইনের ২০ ধারা বিধান উপেক্ষা করবে না। ...Jafri Soap and Chemical Ind. & ors Vs. Agrani Bank & ors, (Civil), 5 SCOB [2015] HCD 79 ....View Full Judgment

The contention of the learned Advocate of the petitioner that upon issuance of the certificate under section 33(7) of the Ain, 2003, the Executing Court has nothing to do but to dispose of the execution case finally is not based on any rationality. For the sake of argument, if the Court becomes functus officio, how later on the Court will entertain another execution case or any other application for handing over possession if it remains with the judgment-debtor. The Court may correct its own mistakes by invoking, the umbrella provision, embodied under section 57 of the Ain, 2003 to do justice and to undo injustice despite the provisions of section 20 of the Ain, 2003. It has to remember that the provisions of section 20 of the Ain, 2003 is neither absolute nor sacrosanct nor untouchable. The parties to the suit cannot and should not suffer for the mistake committed by the Court itself. On perusal of the entire edifice of the Ain, 2003, it becomes visible to us that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall be applicable subject to not being inconsistent with the provisions of the Ain, 2003. The Adalat may review its own order by invoking section 57 of the Ain, 2003 with extreme circumspection in an exceptional case. …City Bank Ltd Vs. Court of 1st JDJ & Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 217 ....View Full Judgment

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.

The plaintiffs-appellants without availing the remedies available to them challenged the judgment and decree in a suit before court of ordinary civil jurisdiction. The suit thus, is eminently barred by law justifying rejection of plaint. .....55 DLR 585.

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.

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.

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.

Section 20— Any question regarding any proceedings initiated or any order, judgment or decree-passed by the Artha Rin Adalat cannot be raised in any court or to authority and no court or authority will take cognizance or accept any application praying for any remedy filed in any court or authority ignoring the provisions of section 20 of the Ain. Jafri Soap and Chemical Industries vs Agrani Bank (Civil) 69 DLR 146
aviv 20— অর্থঋণ আদালতের বিচার প্রক্রিয়া সম্পর্কে বা কোনো আদেশ বা রায়ের বিরুদ্ধে কোনো আদালতে বা কোনো কর্তৃপক্ষের নিকট বা কোনো আদালত বা কোনো কর্তৃপক্ষ অভিযোগ আমলে নিবেনা বা প্রতিকারের জন্য দায়েরকৃত আবেদন কোনো আদালত গ্রহণ করবে না অথবা আইনের ২০ ধারা বিধান উপেক্ষা করবে না। .....Jafri Soap and Chemical Industries vs Agrani Bank (Civil) 69 DLR 146 ....View Full Judgment

Section 20—No form of word seeking to limit the jurisdiction of the ordinary court protects a nullity. A judgment-debtor not concerned with the loan either as borrower, mortgagor or guarantor is not precluded by the ouster clause from protecting his property by resort to ordinary civil court. Per M. Moazzam Husain J (dissenting). .....Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd vs Md. Salauddin, 16 BLC 277.
Section 20—Since the intention of law is not to put a person unconnected with loan transaction into the rigorous procedure of a special statute for protection of his property. He can, therefore, maintain his suit in an ordinary civil Court for relief. Per M. Moazzam Husain J (dissenting). .....Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd vs Md. Salauddin, 16 BLC 277.

No question shall be raised before any court or authority about any pending proceeding in Artha Rin Adalat or its order, judgment or decree. The judgment or decree of Artha Rin Adalat is final and the same cannot be questioned in any other Court under any separate proceeding. Per Sheikh Abdul Awal, J (delivering the main judgment). .....Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd vs Md. Salauddin, 16 BLC 277.

Section 6 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 or for that matter Section 20 of Ain, 2003 create a bar in proceeding with a subsequent suit making a prayer for setting aside an ex-parte decree even on the ground of fraud or even with a prayer for another declaration for the Power of Attorney and Memorandum of Deposit of Title Documents as forged, fabricated and false rather the only remedy available for the opposite party No. I was to go for an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure or an appeal under Section 7 or Section 41 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 and 2003 respectively. Per Nozrul Islam Chowdhury J (Agreeing with Awal, J). .....Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd vs Md Salauddin, 16 BLC 293.

Under section 20 of the Ain an aggrieved party cannot bring a fresh suit against the decision of the Artha Rin Adalat. The section provides that no person can challenge the order or judgment and decree of the Artha Rin Adalat under any other law except the Arth Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. If any prayer is made under any other law except the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 the same shall not be entertainable. .....Rowshan Ara Begum vs Rupali Bank Ltd, 68 DLR 265.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If the Adalat passes any order which is wholly without jurisdiction, not in excess of jurisdiction, then despite of the fact that the law provided forum for appeal, the petitioner cannot he debarred from availing the jurisdiction under article 102 of the constitution. .....Md. Arfanuddin Akanda vs. Artha Rin Adalat, 15 BLT 343.

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.

Section 20— Every where there is one thing in common that of words seeking to limit the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts has been held to protect a nullity. .....Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd. VS Mr. Md. Salauddin and others (Civil), 1 LNJ 1
Section 20— Since the intention of law is not to put a person unconnected with the loan transaction into the rigorous procedure of a special statute for protection of his property under the ordinary law. Such person can file the suit in an ordinary civil court for relief. .....Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd. VS Mr. Md. Salauddin and others (Civil), 1 LNJ 1

Section 6 of the Arthan Rin Adalat Ain , 1990 or for that matter Section 20 of Ain,2003 create a bar in proceeding with a subsequent suit making a prayer for setting aside an ex-parte decree even on the ground of fraud or even with a prayer for another declaration for the Power of Attorney and Memorandum of Deposit of Title Documents as forged, fabricated and false rather the only remedy available for the opposite party No.l was to go for an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure or an appeal under Section 7 or Section 41 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain,1990 and 2003 respectively- Per Nozrul Islam Chowdhury, J (Agreeing with Sheikh Abdul Awal J). Going through the judgment referred to by the learned Advocate for the opposite party No.1 particularly the one reported in 56 DLR 588 I find that in the instant case both the prayers made in the plaint could have been decided by the Adalat itself. Had there been an appeal against the same, under Section 7 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 1990 or Section 41 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain,2003 , therefore, the question of absence of jurisdiction as contemplated in the case reported in 56 DLR is totally absent as such not applicable. The two other decisions relied upon by the opposite party, are also for the same reason namely both the prayer made in the plaint in Title Suit No.31 of 2002 are well within the jurisdiction or competence of Artha Rin Court established under the Arthan Rin Adalat Ain 1990 and 2003 , therefore, none of the aforesaid two cases can be of any help for the opposite party No.1, on the other hand, going through the aforesaid judgment referred to by the learned Advocate for the petitioner I find that in view of the position that section 6 of the Arthan Rin Adalat Ain , 1990 or for that matter Section 20 of Ain,2003 create a bar in proceeding with a subsequent suit making a prayer for setting aside an exparte decree even on the ground of fraud or even with a prayer for another declaration for the Power of Attorney and Memorandum of Deposit of Title Documents as forged, fabricated and false rather the only remedy available for the opposite party No.l was to go for an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure or an appeal under Section 7 or Section 41 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain,1990 and 2003 respectively, therefore, I find that the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner has got substance , as such accepted. .....Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd. VS Mr. Md. Salauddin and others (Civil), 1 LNJ 1

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

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

Sections 21 and 22—From reading section 21 it appears that if the Court deems fit and proper after filing and perusing the written statement than the Court can invoke the provision of this section. But section 21 clearly said that if the parties desires then the Court has no other choice but to go for mediation/arbitration, reading section 21 we find that the power given to the Court under section 21 is a discretionary power to be exercised judiciously. .....Rana Appearels Ltd. vs. Bangladesh, 15 BLT 104

Sections 21 and 22— মামলা দায়ের ও লিখিত বক্তব্য পরীক্ষার পর আদালতের নিকট উপযুক্ত মনে হলে এই ধারার বিধান প্রয়োগ করতে পারবে। কিন্তু ২১ ধারায় স্পষ্টভাবে উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে যদি মামলার পক্ষদ্বয় মধ্যস্থতা বা সালিস চায় তাহলে আদালতের মধ্যস্থতা বা সালিস ছাড়া অন্যকোনো বিষয় পছন্দের সুযোগ নেই। ২১ ধারায় আদালতের ক্ষমতা বিবেচনামূলক হলেও বিচক্ষণতার সহিত প্রয়োগ করতে হবে। .....Rana Appearels Ltd. vs. Bangladesh, 15 BLT 104

From the plain reading of the provisions, it appears that the law has given the right to plaintiff to avail the remedy under Order XXIII, rule 1 of the Code of even at the appellate stage. But the relief contemplated under this provision of law is one of discretionary nature. So, it is desirable that for a discretionary relief the plaintiff should come before the Court at the earliest opportunity. .....Sekander Ali vs. Md. Seraj Mia, 60 DLR 154.

The Respondent Banks Plaintiff instituted Artha Rin Case and the defendant petitioner filed written statement and thereafter filed an application under section 21 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and the said application was rejected on the plea that there is no unconditional consent from the plaintiff bank. Held: Since the whole purpose of enacting the law is for recovery of loan and as such the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 has been incorporated upon consolidating the existing law of 1990, which was firstly enacted in 1990 and since under the existing law it appeared that by filing suits or execution cases money could be recovered but not in a short span of time, the legislature has incorporated the provision of chapter 5 in the new ain for easy recovery of money within a short time and as such alternative dispute resolution chapter 5 has been incorporated in the present Ain allowing the parties to ask for amicable settlement under section 22 and/or under section 21 the Adalat can invoke it if it is deemed fit and proper on perusal of the pleadings of both the parties. The order which has been complained of is hereby declared to be illegal, without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. .....Rana Appearels Ltd. vs Bangladesh, 15 BLT 104.

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.

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.

It cannot be said that the petitioners have been left out without any forum to place its grievance in accordance with law. The Artha Rin Adalat being a creature of the statute it cannot go beyond it nor can it be regulated by other notification which is not, at all related with the adjudication of the suit rather it was made for other purposes as discussed. .....Mirzaboo Steels Ltd vs Government of Bangladesh 59 DLR 141.

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.

Held; It is this Court's view that a specially established tribunal under a special law has wholly and primarily to confine itself with the dictate of that law to the fullest extent possible. It is not open to the Adalat as a special tribunal, to serve the purpose of its convenience or otherwise, to encourage instead a selective application of the provisions of the law contributing to the other provisions being relegated to the background and becoming effectively dead letters of the law. The scenario, therefore, is not only of a misconstruction of the law but of the denial of the true legislative intent. It has been this Court's experience to note repeatedly that Sections 22, 23 and 24 have been relegated to the background in inverse ratio to Sections 33(5) and (7) gaining undue prominence before the Artha Rin Adalat. That situation needs to be addressed and remedied with some sense of urgency if the Act is to be permitted to attain its full legislative objective. In that regard, it is the finding of this Court that Section 22, in particular, manifests a highly formalized and structured hyper-efficient system of ADR that presently rests uncomfortably atop a culture of misconstruction and misinterpretation of the law with impunity. Resultantly, an important Chapter of the law, i.e. Chapter V of the Act is in its entirety being held in perpetual abeyance and risks, in the long run, becoming wholly redundant. .....Md. Ferdous Khan Alamgir & Ors Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Ctg. 22 BLT (HCD)317

Sections 22 and 38— The executing court cannot direct the parties or refer the matter for mediation like the provisions contained in Section 22 of the Ain and as such giving permission to sell the property by the judgment-debtors subject to the provisions of section 38 is absolutely contrary to the provisions of section 38 of the Ain. …..Sonali Bank Ltd. -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, No.-1-5 ALR (HCD)2015(1) 204

Sections 22 and 38— ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নকারী আদালত মামলার পক্ষদ্বয়কে আইনের ২২ ধারার বিধানুসারে মধ্যস্থতার জন্য নির্দেশ দিতে পারে না এবং ৩৮ ধারার অধীন দেনাদারকে সম্পত্তি বিক্রয়ের অনুমতি প্রদান এই আইনের ৩৮ ধারার চরম বিরোধীতা। …..Sonali Bank Ltd. -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, No.-1-5 ALR (HCD)2015(1) 204

Section 22— The Mediator at the time of mediation did not follow the provision of section 22 (4) of the Ain, 2003 and submitted the mediation report before the Adalat without taking any signature/ thumb impression of the contending parties and the signature of the concerned lawyers therein but the learned Judge of the Adalat without following the relevant provision of law whether illegal and erroneous accepted the mediation report.
The High Court Division directed to submit the mediator his mediation report to the Adalat with the signatures of the contending parties and in case of refusal of signing the same with a note to that effect within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and the Adalat is also directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. …..Mohammad Ali, Son of late-Mowlovi Bodiur Rahman, Proprietor of M/S Rumana Enterprise -Vs- Judge (Joint District Judge), Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong and others. (Spl. Original) 11 ALR (HCD) 132-134

Section 22— মধ্যস্থতাকারী মধ্যস্থতার সময় ২০০৩ সালের আইনের ২২(৪) ধারার বিধান পরিপালন করেনি এবং বিবাদমান পক্ষের স্বাক্ষর বা টিপসই এবং সংশ্লিষ্ট আইনজীবীর স্বাক্ষর ছাড়াই আদালতে মধ্যস্থতার রিপোর্ট জমা দিয়েছে। প্রশ্ন হলো বিজ্ঞ আদালত আইনের বিধান অনুসরণ ছাড়াই অবৈধ ও ভুল মধ্যস্থতার রিপোর্ট গ্রহণ করেছে কি না? এক্ষেত্রে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ মধ্যস্থতাকারীকে স্বাক্ষরসহ মধ্যস্থতার রিপোর্ট আদালতে দাখিলের নির্দেশ দেয় এবং স্বাক্ষর দিতে অস্বীকৃতি জানালে এতদসংক্রান্ত বিষয়ে একটি নোটসহ রায়ের কপি পাওয়ার পর ১৫ দিনের মধ্যে আদালত আইনানুসারে অগ্রসর হওয়ার জন্য নির্দেশ দেয়। …..Mohammad Ali, Son of late-Mowlovi Bodiur Rahman, Proprietor of M/S Rumana Enterprise -Vs- Judge (Joint District Judge), Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong and others. (Spl. Original) 11 ALR (HCD) 132-134

This Court finds, from an ingrained inability to appreciate that the core objective of the Act at debt recovery must not invariably without further qualification entail the acquisition of a defaulter/judgment-debtor's property. But undue conservatism per se or misconceived reservations either to explore avenues of equitable alternative amicable settlement processes endorsed by the Act itself or to exercise its inherent jurisdiction, for reasons not entirely evident to this Court, operate regrettably to bind the Adalat's hand as it were. …..Sree Proshanta Kumar Sarkar -Vs.- MD, Agrani Bank Ltd. 3 ALR(2014)(1) 175

It is well settled principle of Apex Court that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, save few exceptions; if it appears to the executing court that the decree is nullity in the eye of law or the decree is passed against dead man or decree is passed by the court having no jurisdiction.
The High Court Division held that admittedly, having obtained an ample opportunity, the parties to the Execution Case failed to mediate the dispute therefore, the submission for settlement conference is fallacious. From the aforesaid discussion, it is also crystal clear that the judgment-debtor has got no bona fide intention to pay off the outstanding decretal amount, therefore, it would not be advisable to stand against the execution proceeding. Accordingly, the High Court Division hold the view that the Rule has got no merit. Consequently, the Rule shall fall through. At the time of pronouncement of the judgment, the learned Advocate of the petitioner orally apprises that he has instruction by his client not to proceed with the case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and to prevent multiplicity of proceeding on self-same cause, the High Court Division hold the view that it would be advisable to dispose of the Rule on merit. Moreover, the backdrop of the case, palpably indicates the petitioner in order to frustrate the hardearned decree has taken different devices. The High Court Division does not find any substance therein and hence, the High Court Division has disposed of the Rule on merit. As a result, the Rule is discharged. .....Md. Rawshan Ali Sarker -Vs.-Bangladesh and others (Spl.Original) 21 ALR (HCD) 168-171

The mediator without following the provision of section 22 (4) of the Ain, 2003 submitted report before the Adalat without taking signatures or thumb impressions of the parties on the report and without signatures of the learned Advocates for the parties therein, submitted report before the Adalat whether legal. …..Mohammad Ali Proprietor of M/S. Imam Motors Son of late Badiur Rahman Road No. 8, House No. 97, O.R. Nizam Road, Police Station-Kotwali, Dis-trict Chittagong -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong and others. (Spl. Original) 12 ALR (HCD) 34-37

Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, save few exceptions; if it appears to the executing court that the decree is nullity in the eye of law or the decree is passed against dead man or decree is passed by the court having no jurisdiction. .....Rawshan Ali Sarker vs Bangladesh 26 BLC 693.

Adalat should remember that after amendment of section 22 in the year 2010 mediation has been made mandatory on the part of the Adalat itself. When amended section 22 be read together with section 24 of the Ain it makes the proposition more clear. Now the law stands that right after filing of the written statement, the duty is incumbent upon the Court to initiate mediation. .....Mohammad Ali vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 19 BLC 356.

The mediator without following the provision of section 22(4) of the Ain, 2003 submitted report before the Adalat without taking signatures or thumb impressions of the parties on the report and without signatures of the learned Advocates for the parties therein, which is a clear violation of mandatory provision of law. .....Mohammad Ali vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong (Spl Original) 24 BLC 89

Held; The jurisdictional distinction between Section 22(1) and 23(1) notably is that it is only in the latter instance that the will of the parties becomes an important factor in initiating the second renewed phase at mediation. That subjective element is notably wholly absent in Section 22(1). In fact this serves as a notice on the parties to take the initial exercise at a mediated settlement under Section 22 very seriously and not to be whimsical and cavalier about it given that a renewed attempt at such a mediated settlement is contingent on the all important factor of the approval of the Adalat. Should that approval not be forthcoming the parties can only lament about a missed opportunity under Section 22. From another perspective, Section 23 reiterates and fortifies the Act's scheme reflected in Section 22 being that of primacy of consideration to be given by the Adalat and the parties to ensure a mediated settlement of claim at the very first opportunity without any exception. .....Md. Ferdous Khan Alamgir & Ors Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Crg. 22 BLT (HCD) 317

Section 26 of the Ain of 2003 has expressly debarred application of the provisions of other statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure pending execution proceedings so far it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Ain of 2003. In other words, the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure so far it relates to the procedure to make the suit ready for holding trial of Artha Rin Suit as well as for execution of decrees are applicable which are not in conflict with the Ain of 2003. Bodiuzzaman Milan vs Bangladesh Commerce Bank Limited 17 BLC 426.

Sections 26 and 27 (1)— Whether an Executing Court situated in a particular district can publish notices in the newspaper for the purpose of auction sale of the property situated in any other district of the country ?
The High Court Division look into the relevant provisions of the Code and also of the Ain under which actions are taken for the purpose of satisfaction of a decree. Order XXI, rule 30 of the Code provides for 3(three) alternative mode for execution of a decree, namely, detention in the civil imprisonment of the judgment debtor, or attachment and sale of his property or both of those actions. Order XXI of the Code has prescribed detailed procedure for implementing those modes of action. Whereby order XXI of the Code, sections 33 and 34 of the Ain contain provisions relating to auction sale and detention of the judgment debtor. The provisions of the Ain are basically similar in nature with those of the Code but there are variations as well and according to section 26 of the Ain, these variations shall prevail. …..Md. Rafiul Alam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and 2(two) others (Spl. Original) 9 ALR (HCD) 277-282

Sections 26 and 27 (1)— ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নকারী আদালত এক জেলায় এবং সম্পত্তির অবস্থান দেশের অন্য জেলায় হলে উক্ত সম্পত্তির নিলাম বিক্রির জন্য সংবাদপত্রে বিজ্ঞপ্তি দিতে পারবে কি না? হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধির সংশ্লিষ্ট বিধান এবং ডিক্রি কার্যকরণের উদ্দেশ্যে নিলাম সংক্রান্ত আইন গভীরভাবে অনুসন্ধান পূর্বক মনেকরে, দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধির আদেশ ২০, বিধি ৩০ অনুসারে ডিক্রি কার্যকরণের তিনটি বিকল্প পন্থা আছে যথা, (১) দায়িককে দেওয়ানি কারাগারে আটকে রাখা, (২) সম্পত্তি বাজেয়াপ্তি ও বিক্রয় এবং (৩) ১ ও ২ একসাথে। দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধির ২১ আদেশে নিলাম বাস্তবায়নে উপরোক্ত পদ্ধতির বিস্তারিত বর্ণনা দেওয়া হয়েছে। দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধির আদেশ ২১ ও আইনের ধারা ৩৩ ও ৩৪ অনুসারে সম্পত্তির নিলাম বিক্রি এবং দায়িককে দেওয়ানি কারাগারে আটকের বিধান উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে। দেওয়ানি কার্যবিধিতে উল্লেখিত নিলামের বিধানসমূহ একই প্রকৃতি হলেও কিন্তু কিছু ভিন্নতা আছে এবং আইনের ২৬ ধারা অনুসারে ভিন্নতা সমূহ প্রাধান্য পাবে। …..Md. Rafiul Alam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and 2(two) others (Spl. Original) 9 ALR (HCD) 277-282

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.

Section 26— অর্থ ঋণ আদালতের সহিত দেওয়ানী কার্যবিধির বিধানের অসংগতি না থাকলে দেওয়ানী কার্যবিধির প্রয়োগে কোনো বাধা নেই। দেওয়ানী কার্যবিধিকে বিস্তৃতভাবে উপলব্ধি তথা উক্ত কার্যবিধির প্রায়োগিক ক্ষেত্রকে আরো সহজতর করার লক্ষ্যে Civil Rules and Orders, Vol-I and II প্রণীত হয়েছে। দেওয়ানী কার্যবিধির ধারা ১০৩ এবং ৪৩ আদেশের ১ নিয়ম অনুযায়ী appealable order সমূহের উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে। এছাড়া, Civil Rules and Orders, Vol-I এ দেওয়ানী কার্যবিধি ও অন্যান্য আইনের কতিপয় আদেশ যেগুলো appealable উহা সবিস্তারে উল্লেখ রয়েছে। দেওয়ানী কার্যবিদির ৪৩ আদেশের নিয়ম-১ (I, II, III, IV) অনুসারে ২১ আদেশের বিধি ৩৪, ৬০, ৬১, ৭২ এবং ৯২ অনুযায়ী প্রদত্ত আদেশ appealable order। Civil Rules and Orders, Vol-I এর Rules 774 এ বর্ণিত আদেশগুলোকে আপীলযোগ্য আদেশসমূহ হিসেবে উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে। .....Abdul Mannan Rauf (Md) vs Bangladesh (Spl Original), 73 DLR 237

Order XXI, rule 83 of the Code does not come into conflict with any of the provisions of Artha Rin Adalat Ain and, as such, applicable in an execution proceeding under the Ain. While arriving at such a decision this Division also took an account of section 26 of the Ain which made the Code of Civil Procedure applicable in execution proceeding so far the relevant provisions of the Code is not inconsistent with the provision of the Ain. .....Mosharef Hossain (Md) vs Bangladesh, 65 DLR 81

Section 26 of the Ain of 2003 has expressly debarred application of the provisions of other statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure pending execution proceedings so far it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Ain of 2003. In other words the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure so far it relates to the procedure to make the suit ready for holding trial of Artha Rin Suit as well as for execution of decrees are applicable which are not in conflict with the Ain of 2003. .....Bodiuzzaman Milon vs Bangladesh Commerce Bank Limited, 17 BLC 426.

Section 26—Procedure of money execution proceeding as laid down in the Code shall equally apply in case of provision of Ain (execution). .....Rafia Ashraf Polly vs Government of Bangladesh, 19 BLC 546.
Section 26—It has made provision for depositing of 25% of the decretal amount where any 3rd party wants to join in execution proceeding to ventilate grievances. Since the Artha Rin Adalat Ain is a special law it will override any other law if there is no inconsistency in the special law itself. .....Rafia Ashraf Polly vs Government of Bangladesh, 19 BLC 546.

Since specific provision is not available in the Act enabling the Artha Rin Court to put the decree-holder into possession, the Court may exercise its such jurisdiction as provided in rules 97 and 98 under Order XXI of the Code read with section 26 of the Act, and give necessary directions to execute its order. .....IFIC Bank Limited Vs. Marinar Fashions Wear Pvt, 15 BLT 425.

In the instant case, the learned Judge ought to have taken necessary steps to put the decree-holder in physical possession of the concerned property of the Judgment-debtor as prayed for. Since specific provision is not available in the Act enabling the Artha Rin Court to put the decree-holder into possession, the Court may exercise its such jurisdiction as provided in rules 97 and 98 under Order XXI of the Code read with section 26 of the Act, and give necessary directions to execute its order. .....IFIC Bank Ltd vs Mariner Fashions Wear Pvt Ltd, 12 BLC 723.

Rule 58 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure requires an executing Court to investigate the claim or objection of an objector as if he was a party to suit. Such investigation is dispensed with only when the court considers the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. The court did not find the claim or objection of AB Bank was delayed. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the Fourth Artha Rin Adalat which now holds the property must dispose of both execution cases under section 27 of the Ain. In the result, the appeal is disposed of without however any order as to cost. Third Artha Rin Adalat is directed to send the decree dated 29-7-99 passed by it in Title Suit No. 125 of 1992 to the Fourth Artha Rin Adalat for execution and Fourth Artha Rin Adalat is directed to execute both the decrees in accordance with law. Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd vs Janata Bank 11 BLC 186

Sections 27 and 33(1)— The High Court Division held that that the execution case in question is required to be sent to the Artha Rin Adalat functioning in the district, Chittagong for the purpose of holding auction sale of the property situated therein. There is no doubt institution of the Artha Rin execution case in Dhaka was a legal one. …..Md. Rafiul Alam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and 2 (two) others (Spl. Original) 9 ALR (HCD) 277-282

Sections 27 and 33(1)— সম্পত্তিটি চট্টগ্রামে অবস্থিত হওয়ায় হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের সিদ্ধান্ত হলো, নিলামে বিক্রির মাধ্যমে ডিক্রি কার্যকর করণের মামলা চট্টগ্রামের বিদ্যমান অর্থঋণ আদালতে পাঠাতে হবে। তবে ডিক্রি কার্যকর করণের মামলা ঢাকার অর্থঋণ আদালতে দায়েরে আইনগত কোনো ক্রটি নেই। …..Md. Rafiul Alam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and 2 (two) others (Spl. Original) 9 ALR (HCD) 277-282

Section 27— To get the maximum price of the property for the benefit of the decree holder Bank as well as the borrower, the auction process in an execution proceeding under the Artha Rin Adalat has to be conducted within the jurisdiction of the property concerned.
The High Court Division finds that the property is situated under the District Gazipur and on the other hand, the executing court is at Dhaka. It is the consistent view of our High Court Division by several cases, in particular, in the case of Gulshana Ara Begum and others Vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 1 , Dhaka and another reported in 70 DLR 230, their lordships held that to get the maximum price of the property for the benefit of the decree holder Bank as well as the borrower, the auction process in an execution proceeding under the Artha Rin Adalat has to be conducted within the jurisdiction of the property concerned. Relevant portions of the said ratio are as follows: “We have already seen that under section 27 (1) of the Ain, the Artha Rin Adalat is empowered to transfer an execution case to a different district and the mortgaged property having been situated at Narayanganj, we are of the view that the execution case has been lawfully filed before the Adalat, but the execution case ought to have been transferred to Artha Rin Adalat, Narayanganj for execution of the decree relating to the mortgaged property situated at Narayanganj so that the property is sold at the maximum price. If the mortgaged property is sold at a maximum price, both the Bank and the judgment-debtors would be benefited by it. Therefore, the learned Judge of the Adalat ought to have allowed the application for transfer of the execution case to a Court of Narayanganj district.” Therefore, agreeing with the above ratio, the High Court Division consider that instead of Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka, the present executing proceeding has to be transferred to the Gazipur District in accordance with section 27 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. Considering the facts and circumstances stated hereinbefore, the High Court Division finds merit in the Rules. In the result, the Rules issued in three writ petitions are made absolute. .....Agrani Bank Limited -Vs.- The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and others (Spl. Original) 18 ALR (HCD) 285-293

Section 27— ডিক্রিপ্রাপ্ত ব্যাংক ও দায়িকের সুবিধার জন্য সম্পত্তির সর্বোচ্চ মূল্য পাওয়ার জন্য সম্পত্তি যে এলাকায় অবস্থিত সেই এলাকার সংশ্লিষ্ট অর্থঋণ আদালত নিলাম প্রক্রিয়া নিয়ন্ত্রণ করবে। হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের মতে, সম্পত্তিটি গাজীপুর জেলায় অবস্থিত এবং অপরদিকে ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নকারী আদালত হলো ঢাকার। এ বিষয়ে বিশেষ করে Gulshana Ara Begum and others Vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 1 , Dhaka and another 70 DLR 230 মামলায় হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের সিদ্ধান্ত হলো ডিক্রিপ্রাপ্ত ব্যাংক ও দায়িকের সুবিধার জন্য সম্পত্তির সর্বোচ্চ মূল্য পাওয়ার জন্য সম্পত্তি যে এলাকায় অবস্থিত সেই এলাকার সংশ্লিষ্ট অর্থঋণ আদালত নিলাম প্রক্রিয়া নিয়ন্ত্রণ করবে। উক্ত সিদ্ধান্তের প্রাসঙ্গিক অংশের সিদ্ধান্ত নি¤œরূপ, যথা:- অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ধারা ২৭(১) অর্থঋণ আদালতকে ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নের জন্য মামলা বিভিন্ন জেলায় স্থানান্তরের ক্ষমতা প্রদান করেছে। বন্ধকী সম্পত্তি নারায়ণগঞ্জে অবস্থিত হওয়ায় মামলাটি বৈধভাবে দায়ের করা হলেও সম্পত্তিটি ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নের জন্য মামলাটি নারায়ণগঞ্জ অর্থঋণ আদালতে স্থানান্তর করতে হবে যাতে করে ডিক্রিপ্রাপ্ত ব্যাংক ও দায়িকের সুবিধার জন্য উক্ত সম্পত্তির সর্বোচ্চ মূল্যে বিক্রি করা যায়। যদি বন্ধকী সম্পত্তি সর্বোচ্চ মূল্যে বিক্রি করা যায় তাহলে ডিক্রিপ্রাপ্ত ব্যাংক ও দায়িক উভয়ই উপকৃত হবে। সে কারণে বিজ্ঞ অর্থঋণ আদালতের বিচারক অবশ্যই ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নের মামলা স্থানান্তরের আবেদন মঞ্জুর করবে। ফলে উপরোক্ত অনুপাতের সঙ্গে সঙ্গতি রেখে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ মনে করে বর্তমান মামলাটির ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নের জন্য অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ২৭ ধারা অনুসারে ঢাকার ১নং অর্থঋণ আদালতের পরিবর্তে নারায়ণগঞ্জে স্থানান্তর করতে হবে। উপরোক্ত ঘটনা ও পরিস্থিতি বিবেচনায় হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ রুলের উপযোগিতা খুঁজে পাওয়ায় তিনটি রীটে ইস্যুকৃত রুল বহাল রাখে। .....Agrani Bank Limited -Vs.- The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and others (Spl. Original) 18 ALR (HCD) 285-293

In addition to these situations the executing Court may also publish the auction notice in a local daily newspaper. In view of such requirement of section 33(1) of the Ain, it is practically not possible for the Adalat in Dhaka to send its process server or dhuly (drummer) to the territorial jurisdiction of another Artha Rin Adalat exercising jurisdiction in another district to fulfill the said requirement smoothly. The reasons is the order of the Executing Court cannot be executed beyond its territorial limits for publicity by the dhuly without the assistance of the process server or dhuly of another Court in whose jurisdiction the order is to be publicized and without compliance with such requirement the auction sale cannot be practically and legally held. The intention of the legislature as provided in sections 27 and 33(1) of the Ain is that when a decree is passed by a competent Artha Rin Adalat, the execution case can be instituted in that Court under section 27 of the Ain but if the decree has to be satisfied by way of auction publicity has to be undertaken both at the national and local level where the property is situated and for that purpose, the execution case needs to be transferred to another Court under section 27(1) of the Ain. The word “may” occurring in section 39 (1) or the expression, “অন্য যে আদালতে প্রেরণ করে” occurring in section 27(1) of the Ain expresses an impression about the discretion of the Court where the execution case is instituted. In consideration of the whole scheme of the Ain with regard to territorial limit or jurisdiction of an Artha Rin Adalat over a district and the mandatory requirement of local publicity under section 33(1) of the Ain, High Court Division cannot but to conclude that in relation to an auction sale of the property situated in another district an Artha Rin Adalat is under a legal obligation to send a case to the concerned Adalat of the other District where the property is situated. …..Md. Rafiul Alam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and 2 (two) others (Spl. Original) 9 ALR (HCD) 277-282

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.

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.

As section 34 does not exclude the operation of section 51 and Order XXI, rule 37 of the Code specifically or by necessary implication, rather the Ain of 2003 is read as a whole, no inference other than that the audi alteram partem rule shall be followed by the Adalat(s) in making an order of civil prison of judgment debtor(s) in execution proceedings. .....Rahima Auto Rice Mills vs Manager, Pubali Bank Ltd, 60 DLR 313.

Any order or decree passed by an Adalat will be executed by itself or by the Adalat before whom the order or decree is transmitted by the Adalat who passed the order or decree. To transfer a decree for execution, neither any precondition nor any consequence has been suggested and so, the provision is discretionary, not mandatory. .....Anowar Mirza vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Oiginal), 72 DLR 216

To get the maximum price of the property for the benefit of the decree-holder Bank as well as the borrower, the auction process in an execution proceeding under the Artha Rin Adalat has to be conducted within the jurisdiction of the property concerned. .....Agrani Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 27 BLC 10

Rule 58 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure requires an executing Court to investigate the claim or objection of an objector as if he was a party to suit. Such investigation is dispensed with only when the court considers the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. The court did not find the claim or objection of AB Bank was delayed. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the Fourth Artha Rin Adalat which now holds the property must dispose of both execution cases under section 27 of the Ain. In the result, the appeal is disposed of without however any order as to cost. Third Artha Rin Adalat is directed to send the decree dated 29-7-99 passed by it in Title Suit No. 125 of 1992 to the Fourth Artha Rin Adalat for execution and Fourth Artha Rin Adalat is directed to execute both the decrees in accordance with law. .....Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd vs Janata Bank, 11 BLC 186.

Section 27(1)—Section 27(1) of the Ain, the Adalat is empowered to transfer an execution case to a different district and the mortgaged property having been situated at Narayanganj, the execution case has been lawfully filed before the Adalat, but the execution case ought to have been transferred to Artha Rin Adalat, Narayanganj for execution of the decree relating to the mortgaged property situated at Narayanganj so that the property is sold at the maximum price. If the mortgaged property is sold at a maximum price, both the Bank and the judgment-debtors would be benefited by it. .....Gulshana Ara Begum vs Judge Artha Rin Adalat No. 1 Dhaka, 70 DLR 230.
Section 27(1)—Section 27(1) of the Ain empowers the Adalat to execute a decree passed by it and the property having been mortgaged for obtaining loan in Dhaka district, it cannot be said that Artha Rin Adalat situated in Dhaka district had no jurisdiction to execute the decree at all, if we consider the scheme of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 as a whole. .....Gulshana Ara Begum vs Judge Artha Rin Adalat No. 1 Dhaka, 70 DLR 230.

The execution case has lawfully filed before the Adalat, but since the mortgaged property is situated at Gazipur district the execution case ought to have been transferred to Gazipur for execution of the decree relating to the mortgaged property situated at Gazipur, so that due to local publicity made by publishing auction notice, beating drums, etc., the property is sold at the maximum price. If the mortgaged property is sold at the maximum price both the Bank and the judgment debtor would be benefited by it. .....Metalex Corporation Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 2, Dhaka (Spl Original), 25 BLC 526

Section 27(2) of the Ain provides a situation where there is only one Artha Rin Adalat for two or more districts and in such situation, if the property is situated at different districts, then the execution case is to be sent to the District Judge for execution of the decree through a court, which would be treated as Artha Rin Adalat. .....Gulshana Ara Begum vs Judge Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, 70 DLR 230.

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

Whether the Artah Rin Adalat, Chittagong can issue a certificate declaring the title of the property vested in the Decree Holder under Section 33(7) of the Ain where the property is situated out side the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court.
Held; It appears from the language as used in the Section 27(1), should the mortgaged property situated beyond the jurisdiction of the Executing Court, it is incumbent upon the Court to send the case to the Court having local jurisdiction for execution of the same. In the present case admittedly the property situated in Dhaka District but the Artha Rin Adalat at Chittagong initiated the process of auction and issued the certificate under Section 33(7) of the Ain which is absolutely beyond its territorial jurisdiction as per provision contained in Section 27(1). .....Mrs. Khazeda Bagum Vs. Shahjalal Islami Bank Ltd. & Anr 24BLT (HCD)290

Section 60 of the Act cannot be interpreted in such a way that the section 28 of the Act can be applied from the stage of institution of a suit which was filed long before the Ain, 2003 came into force. .....Uttara Bank Ltd vs Md Nazir Uddin (Civil) 71 DLR 158

Section 28(1)—The law on the point is very much clear that notwithstanding anything different contained in Limitation Act and in the Code of Civil Procedure the time prescribed for filing of the Execution Case under section 28 of Ain should be strictly followed. The law, being a special law shall override any other provisions in that regard. .....Mostafa Ahmed vs Government of Bangladesh, 65 DLR 294.
Section 28(1)—Law of limitation—The question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. One cannot be allowed to take advantage of something indirectly which he cannot take directly. .....Mostafa Ahmed vs Government of Bangladesh, 65 DLR 294.

If the 2nd Execution Case is filed after expiry of 1 year from the rejection or disposal of the 1st Execution Case or if any new execution case is filed after expiry of six years of filing the first execution case, the same would be barred by limitation. .....Birendra Nath Roy vs Rupali Bank Ltd, 18 BLC 118.

After the passing of the preliminary decree in 1992 final decree was signed on 1-2-2000 and it is also admitted that the Execution was filed on 12-5-2003 which is beyond the prescribed limitation for filing the same under section 28 of the Ain and for that reason the executing Court acted illegally in not holding that the Execution Case is barred under section 28(2) of the Ain. .....Momin Automatic Rice Mills Limited vs Bangladesh Shilpa Bank, 17 BLC 337.

A second execution case can be maintained when it is filed within one year from the date of rejection or disposal of the first execution case, however that course is available only when the first execution case is rejected for reasons other than the ground of limitation. If the second execution case is continued after rejection of the first execution case on the point of limitation it will defeat the special provision of limitation as contemplated in the statute. .....Janata Bank Ltd vs Bangladesh, Secretary Ministry, of Finance and planning, 20 BLC 751.

According to section 28(3) (4) of the Ain, the second execution case is to be filed within one year from the date of disposal of the previous execution case, and or within 6 years from the date of filing of the first execution case. .....Iftekhar Uddin Ahmed vs Artha Rin Adalat, 17 BLC 220.

Since there was no suit of the on Financial Institutions pending before any Commercial Court after 1990. Thereafter, Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 having come into force on 1-5-2003 upon repealing the Ain of 1990, the said execution case was transferred to the Artha Rin Adalat constituted under the Ain 2003 pursuant to section 60(3) of the said Ain. As such, dismissal of the said execution case on 16-5-2003 for default was made by the Adalat constituted under Ain 2003. Hence, filing of the second execution case on 13-11-2003 is very much within one year of the dismissal of the earlier case and is wholly within the scope of section 28(3) of the said Ain of 2003. Thus, there is no illegality in filing of the execution case and continuation of the proceeding of the same. Moreover, the time limit fixed by section 37 of the Ain 2003, for disposal of execution case within 150 days being "directory" not "mandatory", as decided in Writ Petition No. 7615 of 2005 (M Serajul Islam vs Bangladesh) by this bench, there is no illegality in the proceedings of the execution case. .....Khurshid Alam (Md) vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat-1, 12 BLC 592.

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

First execution case was dismissed for default on 29.7.2002, when the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 was in force and there after the second execution case has been filed on 10.04.2004 and it is barred by limitations as contented by the counsel of the Petitioner
Held; The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 came into force on 1.5.2003 with special limitation of one year for filing the second execution case under section 28 (3) of the said Ain excluding the scope of applicability of the Limitation Act and the Civil Procedure Code. Section 60 of the said Ain of 2003 saved all the existing proceedings under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 and it further provides that all proceedings under the previous law would proceed under the new law, so far it is practicable. Under the above circumstances we hold that the limitation of filing the second execution case in question, would be computed from the date of enforcement of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. .....Abdul Motaleb Howlader Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Ors 22 BLT (HCD)119

Held; The right of the decree-holder in accordance with the statute has apparently extinguished as a legal consequence of special provision of limitation incorporated therein. we hold that the provision of section 48 of the Ain will not create any bar or hindrance for the purpose of reckoning 6(six) years of time as a calendar 6 (six) years as contemplated in sub-section (4) of section 28 of the Ain. Moreover, the provisions of special law of limitation under section 28 of the Ain is not depended upon section 48 of the statute. .....M Abdul Barkat Mollah Shamsud Doulah Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Ors 24BLT (HCD)277

Held; Since, the Second Execution case is filed within one year of disposal of the First Execution Case and furthermore, when it is decided by this Court that time frame for disposal of the Execution Case is directory in nature and not at all mandatory, therefore, the Section 28(4) of the Ain, 2003 has no manner of application in the present suit. The suit is already in the ambit of Section 28(3) of the Ain, 2003. The provisions of Section 28 of the Ain, 2003 came into force on 01.05.2003 and Decree Execution Case No.32 of 1997 was filed long before the Ain, 2003. It is clear that the provisions of the Section 28 are applicable at the time of institution of a suit under the Ain, 2003. —Section 60 of the Ain, 2003 cannot be interpreted in such a way that the Section 28 of the Ain, 2003 can be applied from the stage of institution of a suit which was filed long before the Ain, 2003 came into force. .....Uttara Bank Ltd. Vs. Md. Nazir Uddin & Anr 27BLT(HCD)23

Since there was no suit of the Financial Institutions pending before any Commercial Court after 1990. Thereafter, Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 having come into force on 1-5-2003 upon repealing the Ain of 1990, the said execution case was transferred to the Artha Rin Adalat constituted under the Ain 2003 pursuant to section 60(3) of the said Ain. As such, dismissal of the said execution case on 16-5-2003 for default was made by the Adalat constituted under Ain 2003. Hence, filing of the second execution case on 13-11-2003 is very much within one year of the dismissal of the earlier case and is wholly within the scope of section 28(3) of the said Ain of 2003. Thus, there is no illegality in filing of the execution case and continuation of the pro­ceeding of the same. Moreover, the time limit fixed by section 37 of the Ain 2003, for disposal of execution case within 150 days being "directory" not "mandatory", as decided in Writ Petition No. 7615 of 2005 (M Serajul Islam vs Bangladesh) by this bench, there is no illegality in the proceedings of the execution case. Khurshid Alam (Md) vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 12 BLC 592

Section 28(4) of the Ain clearly stipulates that if a new Execution case is filed after the expiry of the 6 years from the date of filing of the 1st Execution case, the 2nd case shall also be barred by limitation. In our view, section 28(4) of the Ain contemplates and takes into account the situation were the 1st Execution case, is neither concluded nor disposed of within the period of 6 years. ...Kazi Monirul Haque Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 15

Section 28(4)— আইনের ২৮ ধারায় স্পষ্টভাবে উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে, ২য় ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নের মামলাটি ১ম মামলা দায়েরের ৬ বছর পর দায়ের করা হলে ২য় মামলাটি তামাদি দ্বারা বারিত হবে। আইনের ২৮(৪) ধারার উদ্দেশ্যে এবং পরিস্থিতি বিবেচনায় আমাদের অভিমত হলো ১ম ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নের মামলাটি ৬ বছরের মধ্যে শেষ বা নিষ্পত্তি হয়নি। ...Kazi Monirul Haque Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 15 ....View Full Judgment

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

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

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

The High Court Division observed that for the enforcement of the Decree, Orders passed by the Court of law the litigants has to file an Execution petition before the Executing Court by exercising the provisions as enshrined under Section 28 of the Ain with the aid of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. For filing such an Execution Case Section 5 of the Limitation Act is strictly not applicable because the Execution Petition should be filed within the time period originally fixed under the Act failing which the Decree Holder in the eyes of law had exhausted his lawful remedies, as such, it cannot thereafter, enforce its rights as enshrined under the Decree, Order, etc. passed by the Court in its favour. …..Dewan Ruhul Amin Vs.- The Artha Rin (Mahmudul Hoque J) 6 ALR - 2015(2)97

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

Since the suit was decreed on 02.08.2003, the present petitioner as judgment debtor without challenging the judgment and decree under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 (in short, the Ain) filed the instant writ petition challenging the proceedings of execution case and as such the Rule is not maintainable.
The High Court Division held that admittedly, the petitioner as borrower obtained loan by mortgaging the property as security and the bank obtained decreed on 02.08.2003. However, the petitioner without challenging the said decree or final decree before the appropriate appellate forum under Section 41 of the Ain, 2003 filed the instant writ petition challenging the proceedings of the execution case. The decree obtained by the bank which is unchallenged still now and as such the decree-holder Bank has legally filed the execution case for recovery of the decretal amount within the specific time as contemplated in Section 28 of the Ain, 2003. In view of the above, the High Court Division does not find any illegality in the proceedings of the execution case. Accordingly, the Rule is discharged. .....Anwar Hossain. -Vs.- Bangladesh, and others (Spl. Original) 30 ALR (HCD) 124

After pronouncement of judgment and signing decree if the said decree is amended at the instance of either party or the Court itself/himself the fresh limitation would be counted from the date of amendment of decree as per article 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
The High Court Division held that it appears that the learned Judge of the Adalat without following the relevant provision of law passed the impugned order rejecting the artha jari case of the Bank as barred and barred by limitation, which is not tenable in the eye of law. .....Pubali Bank Limited -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Khulna and others (Spl. Original) 15 ALR (HCD) 270-272

There is no illegality in continuation of the second Execution proceedings— The second Execution Case No. 446 of 2004 within less than 02 months of the dismissal of the earlier Execution Case 25 of 1990 for continuation of Execution proceedings is well within the provision of law in view of the specific provision of section 28(3) of the said Ain. …..Sekerder Ali Miah -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat 3 ALR(2014)(1) 285

Where any new execution suit is filed on the expiry of six years from the date of filing of the first execution suit, the said suit shall be barred by limitation and the Court shall not admit the suit, so barred by limitation for action and shall directly dismiss the same.
The High Court Division observed that in the instant case, admittedly, the second or new execution suit has been filed after expiry of six years from the date of filing of the first execution suit which is barred by limitation in view of the provision under sub-section (4) of section 28 of the Artha rin Adalat Ain, 2003, In that view of the matter the Execution Court committed no illegality in dismissing the second execution suit by the impugned order and as such, the High Court Division finds no merit in this Rule. In the result, the rule is discharged. .....Sonali Bank Limited –Vs.- M/S Asha Textile, (Civil), 30 ALR (HCD) 45.

Chapter VI of Ain 2003 deals with execution matter. Section 28 of Ain prescribes limitation only in respect of filing of Execution Cases arising out of Artha Rin Case. It prescribes limitation for filing the Execution Case by giving a positive and specific consequence in as much as if the same is not filed within time specified in the section itself the same would be rejected outright. It certainly bears a mandatory implication. The construction of the section implies that the Execution Case would be barred by limitation if it is not filed within time. The legislatures in its wisdom connotes the mandatory application of section 28 consciously. The legislatures to make a particular enactment mandatory, used some phraseologies to give it a mandatory meaning. .....Shitalakhaya Ice and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat, 64 DLR 487.

Admittedly the decree in question was passed on 14- 7-1984 and thereafter the 1st execution case was filed on 26-11-1984. This last execution case was dismissed for default on 3-10-1992 and thereafter the execution case in question i.e. the 2nd execution case was filed on 8-2-1999 the execution case in question has not been filed on 8-2-1999 the execution case in question has not been filed within the time prescribed in Article 182 of the Limitation Act and in section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. So, in this circumstances without any further discussion it may be said that the execution case in question being hopelessly barred by limitation is unlawful. .....A.B.M. Ashrafullah vs Bangladesh, 17 BLT 343.

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.

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no manner of application in the Artha Rin Adalat Ain. When there is special limitation in a special law, that is, mandatorily to be followed. .....Habib Bank Limited vs UAE Bangladesh Investment Company Limited, 52 DLR 25.

Limitation for filing appeal—from a reading of the relevant provisions it is manifest that if a suit is a mortgage suit and brought for foreclosure in that case, the decree pronounced by the Adalat shall be a preliminary decree and the decrees of the Adalat for recovery of loans in other cases are to be treated final decrees. .....FR Garments (Pvt) Ltd. vs Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka, 61 DLR 296.

Section 29– Entire proceeding of execution case is barred by limitation and without jurisdiction as such, from the date of filing of the execution case upto selling of the property in auction, entirely was done without jurisdiction, illegally, malafide and arbitrarily. .....Dr Md Asadullah vs Sonali Bank Ltd, 62 DLR 474.

Section 29– ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়ন মামলার সমস্ত প্রক্রিয়া তামাদি দ্বারা বারিত এবং এখতিয়ারবিহীন হওয়ার কারণে মামলা দায়েরের তারিখ হতে নিলামে সম্পত্তি বিক্রি হওয়া পর্যন্ত সকল কার্যক্রম এখতিয়ারবিহীন, অবৈধ, খারাপ উদ্দেশ্যে এবং নির্বিচারে করা হয়েছে। .....Dr Md Asadullah vs Sonali Bank Ltd, 62 DLR 474.

There is no criterion fixed to judge which one of the journals is to be treated as widely circulated one and which is not. The question of deciding the scope of issuing order of warrant of arrest would not depend on the provisions of section 30 of the Ain. The ratio decidendi of the Appellate Division in the Provat Kumar's case and the subsequent decisions of this Division also approve the proposition. Section 34 of the Ain is an independent section making provisions for issuing order of warrant of arrest in a fit case. Abu Musa (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat Chittagong (Spl Original) 23 BLC 122

As section 34 does not exclude the operation of section 51 and order XXI, rule 37 of the Code specifically or by necessary implication, rather the Ain of 2003 is read as a whole, no inference other than that the audi alteram partem rule shall be followed by the Adalat(s) in making an order of civil prison of judgment debtor(s) in execution proceedings. .....Rahima Auto Rice Mills vs. Manager, Pubali Bank Ltd., 60 DLR 313.

The in issuing warrant of arrest and detaining the petitioners in civil jail has assigned the reason only stating that the Judgment-debtor failed to appear before the Court and to show cause in spite of publishing notice under section 30 of the Ain in the dailies, but the Ain does not say so. The application filed by the Bank praying for issuance of warrant of arrest and detention of the petitioners and the impugned order are contrary to the provisions as contained in section 34(1) of the Ain. .....Abdul Jalil (Md) vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 2nd Court, Dhaka, 67 DLR 575.

There is no criterion fixed to judge which one of the journals is to be treated as widely circulated one and which is not. The question of deciding the scope of issuing order of warrant of arrest would not depend on the provisions of section 30 of the Ain. .....Ali Ajgar vs Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Finance, 69 DLR 505.

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

Failure of the Bank to follow up the provision of section 33(5), (6) and the Adalat's failure to follow up the provision of section 30(1) of the Ain appears to be the fatal flow that appears evidently on record. .....Wadud Sheikh (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat, 20 BLC 398.

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

Sections 30— There is no criterion fixed to judge which one of the journals is to be treated as widely circulated one and which is not. The question of deciding the scope of issuing order of warrant of arrest would not depend on the provisions of section 30 of the Ain.
The High Court Division held that section 30 of the Ain provides for publication of the name of the incumbent in a widely circulated newspapers. In the instant case the publication was made in “Dainik Banik Barta” which, as the learned counsel submits, is not at all a widely circulated Journal. There is no criterion fixed to judge which one of the journals is to be treated as widely circulated one and which is not. The question of deciding the scope of issuing order of warrant of arrest would not depend on the provisions of section 30 of the Ain. The ratio decidendi of the Appellate Division in the Provat Kumar’s case and the subsequent decisions of this Division as referred to above also approve the said proposition. Section 34 of the Ain is an independent section making provisions for issuing order of warrant of arrest in a fit case. …..Md. Ali Ajgar -Vs.- Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh & others. (Spl. Original) 13 ALR (HCD) 9-13

Sections 30— কোন পত্রিকাটি বহুল প্রচারিত কোনটা বহুল প্রচারিত না তা বিচারের নির্দিষ্ট কোনো মানদন্ড নেই। গ্রেফতারি পরোয়ানার আদেশ জারি আইনের ৩০ ধারার বিধানের উপর নির্ভর করে না। হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের মতে, আইনের ৩০ ধারা শুধুমাত্র বহুল পরিচিত সংবাদপত্রে নাম প্রকাশের শর্ত আরোপ করে। এই মামলায় বিজ্ঞ আইনজীবীর বক্তব্য ছিল বিজ্ঞপ্তিটি দৈনিক বণিক বার্তায় প্রকাশিত হয়েছিল যা বহুল প্রচারিত সংবাদ পত্র ছিল না। কোন পত্রিকাটি বহুল প্রচারিত কোনটা বহুল প্রচারিত না তা বিচারের নির্দিষ্ট কোনো মানদন্ড নেই। গ্রেফতারি পরোয়ানার আদেশ জারি আইনের ৩০ ধারার বিধানের উপর নির্ভর করে না। প্রভাত কুমার মামলায় আপীল বিভাগের সিদ্ধান্তের কারণ এবং পরবর্তীতে উল্লেখিত সিদ্ধান্তকেই বহাল রাখে। আইনের ৩৪ ধারাটি উপযুক্ত মামলায় গ্রেফতারি পরোয়ানার আদেশের বিধান তৈরিতে স্বাধীন। …..Md. Ali Ajgar -Vs.- Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh & others. (Spl. Original) 13 ALR (HCD) 9-13

Sections 31 and 41—Appeal may be preferred against any kind of order passed at the time of carrying out the execution process, irrespective of its nature of finality or interlocutory, and, thus, we hold that no distinctive meanings have been attributed to the words "order" or 'interlocutory order" by the Legislature for the order passed at the post-decree stage by the Adalats. .....Sonali Bank Limited vs Asha Tex International, 20 BLC 185.

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.

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.

An aggrieved party i.e. a Judgment-debtor has only the forum of appeal when a decree is passed either on contest or expert. Provision of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable subject to this special law. .....MAC vs Agrani Bank, 47 DLR 233.

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— 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

Sections 31, 41 and 44—Once the decree is drawn, thereafter, 'any party to the suit' is competent to prefer any appeal against any order passed by the Adalats inasmuch as the precondition for preferring an appeal to deposit a certain amount of money can be fulfilled only after ascertaining the decretal amount. .....Sonali Bank Ltd vs Asha Tex International, 20 BLC 185. Sections 31, 41 and 44— একবার ডিক্রি ঘোষণার পর মামলার যেকোনো পক্ষ আদালতের আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে আপীল করার জন্য উপযুক্ত। তবে পূর্বশর্ত হিসাবে ডিক্রিকৃত অর্থের নির্দিষ্ট পরিমাণ অর্থ জমা দিতে হবে। .....Sonali Bank Ltd vs Asha Tex International, 20 BLC 185.

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

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

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

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

The Adalat by exercising its discretion under order XXI, rule 100 and 101 of the Code entertained the application and after delivery of possession of the schedule property to the petitioner-auction-purchaser, the Adalat has not become functus-officio. .....Sanaullah vs Government of Bangladesh, 17 BLC 481.

The requirement of depositing 25% of decreetal amount is mandatory since the consequence of not depositing 25% of decreetal amount is stipulated in the section 32 of the Act to the effect that the application shall be rejected. .....Shamsuddin Ahmed vs City Bank Ltd, 18 BLC 30.

Civil court under section 9 of the Code has jurisdiction to try all suit/case of civil nature, as such, if the decree under challenge be tainted with fraud then why the plaintiff shall be over burdened with compulsory payment of 10% of the decreetal amount as per section 32 of the Ain. Since Artha Rin Adalat Ain, being special law, learned Judge was totally on wrong forum in entertaining which is not within his jurisdiction. .....Janata Bank vs Md Sekandar, 18 BLC 793.

Third party can lodge claim under section 32 of the Ain according to the provisions of Civil Procedure Code by filing an application in the execution case arising out of a decree or an order of the Artha Rin Adalat on depositing 25% of the decreetal amount. .....Rowshan Ara Begum vs Rupali Bank Ltd, 68 DLR 265.

The 3rd party had enough scope to file an application before the Adalat by way of filing an objection under section 32 of the Ain, against the execution of a decree passed by the Adalat relating to the property. .....Promoda Sundari Sen Kalyan Trust, Rangpur vs Momtaz Zafar Ahmed, 68 DLR 53.

The petitioners are the third party and their case is that they are the bonafide purchaser of the mortgage property and they are willing to clear up the outstanding dues of the Bank. The petitioners can have their remedy under section 32 of the Ain, 2003, if so advised. .....Dr Md Habibuzzaman Chowdhury vs Bangladesh, 64 DLR 281.

On close examination of section 32 of the Ain, we find two words to be very pertinent which are “দাবি পেশ”. On going through the rejecting application, we find that, the petitioner made a claim to the effect that,1,00,44,317 shares should not be attached by the respondent No. 2 which denotes a claim has been made by the petitioner who is none but mere a third party to the Artha Execution Case and if it is so then it has to comply with the provisions so enumerated in section 32(1)(2)(3) of the Ain. .....Standard Bank Ltd vs Court of the Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 74 DLR 250

Since specific remedy is there in the Ain so the court has no scope to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 57 of the Ain. Because, in the four corners of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, there has been no other provision other than section 32 to make any claim by a third party in the subject matter in the execution case filed under Artha Rin Adalat Ain. .....Standard Bank Ltd vs Court of the Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 74 DLR 250

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.

Under section 32 (1) the Adalat may reject the prayer at its first instance if found no substance therein for consideration. Under section 32(4), the Adalat after hearing the applicant and the decree-holder bank may reject the application, if it is of the opinion that the claim has been made on frivolous ground and that it shall also forfeit the security at the time of its rejection. .....Atiqun Nessa vs Government of Bangladesh (Spl Original) 74 DLR 204

Section 32(2)—Artha Rin Adalat Ain is a special law and the provision of section 32(2) of the Ain shall prevail over any other law relating to the claim of the third party claimants and the third party claimants are to comply with the mandatory provision of section 32(2) of the Ain for releasing the mortgaged properties claiming ownership. .....Rupali Bank Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat Chittagong, 69 DLR 178.

Provision of previous sub-section (2) of section 32 of the Ain has been amended, but the provision is still a mandatory provision of law. Adalat released the mortgaged properties in favour of the third party claimants, although the third party claimants have not complied with the provision of section 32(2) of the Ain and the Adalat had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the claim of the third party claimants and release the mortgaged properties in their favour. .....Rupali Bank Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat Chittagong, 69 DLR 178.

The contemplation of the legislature in section 32(2) is the investigation of claims and objection as provided under Order XXI, rule 58 not beyond the periphery of rule 58. Since the petitioner filed the petition under Order XXI, rules 90 and 91 for setting-aside the sale on the ground of fraud they are not required to furnish any security as provided under sub-section (2) of section 32 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain. .....Mollah Shahidul Islam vs Md Monsur Rahman, 57 DLR 164.

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.

Artha Rin Adalat Ain is a special law providing special provisions to combat different situations. Section 32(2) is one which gives a right to any third party to file application against any grievance that to be remedied. But the law enjoins a strict compliance of the provision in its true purport and spirit. It has to be borne in mind that this special provision of law cannot be circumvent by bringing some fallacious argument that would negate the main spirit of law as propounded by the legislature in its wisdom. .....Saiful Islam (Md) vs Bangladesh, 17 BLC 558.

Both parties alleged fraud against each other. Whether there was any fraud or not itself is also disputed question of fact and its answer will depend on the answer to the question whether the petitioner is the real owner of the flats or whether she is only custodian of the flats and the Judgment-debtor No. 2 is the real owner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of section 32(2) of the Ain, the petitioner is required to furnish security to the extent of 25% of the decretal amount to maintain an application under the Ain. .....Rashida Mahabub vs IFIC Bank Ltd, 13 BLC 78.

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.

Section 32(2)— If the Adalat does not reject the claim of the applicant at its preliminary consideration it is more reasonable that while issuing notice under section 32(1) upon the decree-holder to appear and contest the application it shall direct the applicant to deposit the security under section 32(2) of the Ain within the period of time so has been fixed by it, and that the date so has been fixed must be before the appearance of the decree-holder bank. If the applicant fails to comply with the direction the Adalat shall reject the application under section 32 (2) of the Ain on the very next date. .....Atiqun Nessa vs Government of Bangladesh (Spl Original) 74 DLR 204
Section 32(2)— If the petitioners prefer application under section 32 of the Ain in accordance with law and the Adalat is of the opinion that to delay the execution process frivolous claim has been made it may fall back under section 32(4) of the Ain and forfeit the security. .....Atiqun Nessa vs Government of Bangladesh (Spl Original) 74 DLR 204

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

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

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

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

Whether an order of the Artha Rin Adalat in rejecting petitioner's application under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be said to be passed as per provision of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.
Held; in the instant case admittedly Artha Rin Adalat amended the mortgaged deed on plaintiff bank's application made under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure just one day before the decree - question as crept is that whether an investigation is required when 3rd party challenged the decree on the ground of fraud. It has been settled all through that if 3rd party filed application under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure invoking the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure in getting redress for protecting the property, it is to be filed before the Arthawrin Adalat, not before the civil Court as decree has been passed by Arthawrin Adalat. But application under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon which the miscellaneous case proceed which cannot be done or file as per provision of Arthawrin Adalat Ain as Ain made restricted application of Code of Civil Procedure. This proceeding although before the Arthawrin Adalat but independent of the proceeding of Arthawrin Ain but order is to be passed by Arthawrin Adalat as the decree passed by the Adalat and since the proceeding arisen out of an application filed under provision of Code of Civil Procedure, in such position, this order cannot be said to be passed as per provision of Arthawrin Ain but as per provision of Code of Civil Procedure. On these facts Section 43 of the Arthawrin Adalat Ain cannot be invoked as it requires deposition of 10% decreetal amount which is mandatory. Section 43 of the Ain relates to the parties who are before the Court or Adalat. Appellant has been brought in court by the decree holder by amending the schedule of the application just one day before the ex-parte decree was passed without notifying the appellant. Section 43 of the Ain although give a right to appeal but with a penalty clause of depositing 10% of the decreetal amount. The person having no knowledge of the proceeding and his property has been included in the schedule just one day before the decree, in such position, appellant shall not be required to pay 10% decreetal amount. .....Md. Humayun Kabir Vs. Sonali Bank Limited 22 BLT (HCD)307

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

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Order XXI Rule 58, 90
Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
Section 32
There is specific provision for getting the attached property released from the execution proceeding of Artha Rin Adalat Ain— The Artha Rin Adalat rejected the said application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Then the appellants preferred Miscellaneous Appeal in the High Court Division which was dismissed. Then they filed review petition in the High Court Division which was also rejected by the impugned order. —The High Court Division observed that the instant application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not entertainable and that the remedy of the third party applicant lies under section 32 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 which provides the provision that the third party claimant is required to furnish 10% security on the decreetal amount for getting release of the property attached in connection with Artha Rin Execution Case. In case of failure to furnish such security the application would not be entertainable by the Arth Rin Adalatin execution proceeding in view of the specific provision as contemplated under section 32 of the Ain which is a special law. In the instant case, the third party claimant, ignoring the said provision provided in the Ain, has filed the instant application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Appellate Division does not find any illegality in the judgment and order of the High Court Division which call for any interference by this division. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. .....Hazi Md. Abul Kashem =VS= Janata Bank Ltd., (Civil), 2024(2) [17 LM (AD) 108] ....View Full Judgment

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

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.

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

It is to be noted that in the instant case, the respondent no. 3 Bank had obtained a certificate from the Adalat by filing an application under section 33(7) of the Ain, Therefore, in our view, once a certificate has been issued under section 33(7) of the Ain in favour of the decree holder Bank, that by itself would bring to an end of the proceeding of the Artha Jari case. ...Kazi Monirul Haque Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 15

Section 33—৩নং প্রতিবাদী ব্যাংক অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ৩৩(৭) ধারার অধীন আবেদনের মাধ্যমে আদালত হতে সার্টিফিকেট গ্রহণ করেছিল। সে কারণে আমাদের সিদ্ধান্ত হলো, আইনের ৩৩(৭) ধারায় ডিক্রি ধারকের অনুকূলে সার্টিফিকেট গ্রহণের মাধ্যমে অর্থ জারির মামলার সমাপ্তি হয়েছে। ...Kazi Monirul Haque Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 15 ....View Full Judgment

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

As per section 33(2) of the Act, the Petitioner has forfeited all rights and privileges upon his failure to deposit the balance amount of bid money within the stipulated period of ten days time. Furthermore, there is no scope to interpret the law to give the Petitioner a technical or tactical advantage of a ninety-day extension in the name of Artha Rin Adalat (Amendment) Ordinance, 2007. This is because equity follows the appropriate rules of law and does not replace or violate the law. Therefore, the Writ Petitioner may not now be allowed to frustrate justice on the ground of mere technical interpretation of any aspect of law and equity. ...M. A. Hashem Vs. Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka & ors, (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 19 ....View Full Judgment

Whether the Artha Rin Adalat can issue a certificate on n application filed by the decree holder bank under section 33(7) of the Ain totally ignoring the steps taken under section 33(4) of the Ain for holding further auction of the mortgaged property and, thereby, obviating the necessity of following the provisions contained in Section 33(4),(5) and (6) of the Ain. …..Zodiac Sweaters Ltd.-Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, No. 3 5 ALR (HCD)2015(1) 316

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.

It transpires from the order sheets that the Executing Court did not comply with the provisions of section 33(1) of the Ain, 2003. It is a mandatory requirement to publish an auction notice in a widely circulated daily newspaper. The daily Destiny has not got no existence at present and undisputedly, at the relevant time it was not a widely circulated daily newspaper. As the auction notice was not published in a widely circulated daily newspaper, therefore, prospective bidders could not participate in the bid. Moreover, the decree holder-Bank did not take any step under section 33(4) of the Ain, 2003 to sell out the mortgage property on auction and thereby, negated the provision of section 33(4) of the Ain, 2003. …City Bank Ltd Vs. Court of 1st JDJ & Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 217 ....View Full Judgment

The property under auction sale is situated in the different District and the trial Court Adalat situated at different District, whether the trial Court has territorial jurisdiction to execute such decree? …..Md. Rafiul Alam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and 2(two) others (Spl. Original) 9 ALR (HCD) 277-282

On meaningful reading of sub-sections (5), (7), (7Ka) and (7Kha) of section 33 of the Ain, 2003, it transpires that where the possession of property requires to be obtained through intervention of the Court, the decree holder has to file an application in writing to the Executing Court to hand over possession of the said property to the decree holder or the auction purchaser as the case may be and before handing over possession of the property, the Executing Court shall be reassured that it is the property which was lawfully mortgaged by its original owner against the loan liabilities or which was attached under the original title and possession of the judgment-debtor for execution of the decree. The provisions of sub-sections 7Ka and 7Kha of section 33 of the Ain, 2003 were incorporated by the Artha Rin Adalat Ain (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Act XVI of 2010) in order to protect the property of the actual owner. In this case, admittedly, the possession of the mortgage property remains with the judgment-debtor. If the execution case is disposed of upon issuance of certificate of title, the decree holder will not be able to obtain the possession without the intervention of the Court. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that upon issuance of certificate of title under section 33(7) of the Ain, 2003, the Executing Court has become functus officio is fallacious and not based on cogent reasons. …City Bank Ltd Vs. Court of 1st JDJ & Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 217

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

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

It appears from section 33(1) of the Ain that for the purpose of auction sale it requires at least three preparations. Firstly, publication of an auction notice in at least one widely circulated National Bangla Daily. Secondly, fixing of the auction notice in the notice board of the executing Court, and lastly beating of drum in the locality. The aforesaid actions invariably requires the beating/drum in the locally in which the property is situated. The purpose of such requirement is that the people of the locality must know that the property is in the process of an auction sale pursuant to a competent Court’s decree. …..Md. Rafiul Alam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and 2 (two) others (Spl. Original) 9 ALR (HCD) 277-282

To sum up, our final conclusion is as under:
i. Auction notice was not issued in accordance with the mandatory requirement of law and auction process was not conducted as per the provision of section 33(1) of the Ain, 2003 and therefore, issuance of certificate of ownership by the stroke of a pen by the Executing Court is patently illegal.
ii. In case of issuance of certificate under section 33(5) of the Ain, 2003, it is obligatory to exhaust the auction process under sub-sections (1) and (4) of section 33 of the Ain, 2003. If the certificate of title is issued upon without exhausting the procedure of section 33(4) of the Ain, 2003 that will make the said provision useless and nugatory. In such a case, the Bank or Financial Institutions by a show up auction process under section 33(1) of the Ain, 2003 will straight apply for a certificate of title with an ulterior motive depriving the judgment-debtor from obtaining the actual market price of the property. So we hold the view that before issuance of certificate of title to the mortgage property or other property of the judgment-debtor, the Executing Court shall follow the provisions of sections 33(1) and 33(4) of the Ain, 2003 and after that it will fix the actual market price of the mortgage property or other property and succinctly be stated in the certificate of title so that the outstanding dues if any may be adjusted later on. In such a case, the Executing Court shall determine the actual market price of the mortgage property on the basis of a report from the Sub-Registrar of the local jurisdiction. Apart from the same, in certificate issuing order, the Executing Court shall state as to whether the decretal amount has been adjusted wholly, if not, the amount of outstanding dues should state therein. It repeatedly comes to our notice that the Executing Court mechanically allows the prayer of issuance of certificate of title. Mechanical issue of certificate of title is deprecated by this Court.
iii. The Court should not be tempted to follow the precedent of one case by matching color of another case. The Court should not be oblivious that a single significant or material fact may change the entire edifice of the case as no two cases are similar. Every case has to decide upon its own facts and peculiar circumstances, therefore, the Court has to incur infinite painstaking.
iv. The principle enunciated in the case reported in 15 BLT(HCD) (2007) 425 and 63 DLR (2011) 282 is based on sound reasonings and the same was strengthen and fortified by incorporating sub-sections 7Ka and 7Kha of section 33 by amended Act XVI of 2010.
v. Sub-sections 7Ka and 7Kha of section 33 of the Ain, 2003 were incorporated in order to mending the lacuna of the provision of subsections 5, 7 and 9 of section 33 of the Ain, 2003. Moreover, in the case of Sk. Mohiuddin v. Joint District Judge & Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka and others, supra, the case of 15 BLT (HCD) (2007) 425 was not considered.
vi. Section 33(9) of the Ain, 2003 provides that when the rights of possession and use of any property under sub-section (5) or the title of any property under sub-section (7) vests in favour of the decree holder, the suit for execution of the said decree shall, subject to the provisions of section 28, be finally disposed of. The word ‘final’ is not absolute. It has to be read with sections 28, 33(7Ka) and 33(7Kha) of the latest amended Ain, 2010. Therefore, we strongly hold the view that mere issuance of certificate under sections 33(5) and 33(7) of the Ain, 2003 is not enough to finally dispose of the execution case. If the possession of the mortgage property or other property attached by the Executing Court for realizing outstanding loan money remains with the decree holder, the Executing Court may dispose of the execution case in view of section 33(9) of the Ain, 2003. Resorting to literal meaning of section 33(9) of the Ain, 2003 will be a great concern and it may cause devastating consequence, therefore, harmonious construction of the aforesaid provisions is sine qua non to fulfill the purpose of the legislature.
vii. As per the mandate of section 58 of the Ain, 2003, the Government may, by notification in the official gazette, make rules to give effect to the provisions of this Ain, 2003. Some provisions of the Ain, 2003, need more clarification and to give effect to the provisions therein for the smooth functioning of the Artha Rin Adalat. The Government may formulate comprehensive delegated legislations and the necessary forms like issuance of certificate of title, certificate of possession, enjoyment of usufructs and sale of the mortgage property etc. should be prescribed therein to do away with the confusions crept in the Ain, 2003.
viii. In view of section 5 of the Ain, 2003, it appears that two types of suits may be filed before the Artha Rin Adalat. One is mortgage suit for sale or foreclosure and the other is Artha Rin Suit for recovery of loan money. In the former suit, the Adalat shall pass preliminary decree and in the later suit, the Adalat shall pass final decree. A decree awarded by the Adalat in any suit instituted under the Ain, 2003 except mortgage suit under subsection 3 of section 5 of the Ain, 2003, shall be deemed to be a preliminary decree of foreclosure in favour of the plaintiff financial institution; and as soon as the auction sale is held in continuation of the decree of the mortgage immovable property in favour of the plaintiff against the loan, the said preliminary decree shall be deemed to be the final decree, and the sale shall be final and the purchase shall be valid and thereafter, the judgment-debtor shall have no right to redeem the said mortgaged property.
ix. In this case, auction was not conducted in accordance with law. Moreover, no auction sale was held. Therefore, the right of redemption has not yet been extinguished by operation of the Ain, 2003 or the Limitation Act, 1908.
x. The petitioner Bank did not file any mortgage suit. Admittedly, it filed Artha Rin Suit for recovery of Tk. 5,20,370.62. Admittedly, the principal amount was Tk. 5,20,370.62 and execution case was filed for Tk.6,51,888.82. The judgment-debtor on 03.12.2006 paid Tk. 2,00,000/-, on 12.12.2006 paid Tk. 95,000/, on 13.12.2006 paid Tk. 4,00,000/-, on 17.09.2007 paid Tk. 21,000/- and on 08.10.2009 paid Tk. 2,00,000/- and as such the judgment-debtor deposited Tk. 9,16,000/-. The decree holder did not deny the same to the Executing Court. The decree holder-Bank could not submit any statement of accounts to show that those amounts were adjusted. Moreover, the judgment-debtor is ready to pay off the rest of the outstanding dues to protect his homestead. As the mortgage property has not been sold by auction, therefore, the right of redemption of the mortgage property has not yet been extinguished; the learned Judge of the Executing Court by applying his judicial conscience rightly passed the impugned order, which is laudable, hence, the same does not call for any interference.
xi. Title is legal ownership. Possession is physical control of the movable or immovable property. Possession is the prima facie evidence of ownership, called as nine out of ten points of law meaning that there is a presumption the possessor of a property or thing is owner of it and the other elements in order to have that property or thing must prove their title or better possessory right. Certificate of ownership or title equivalent to title deed. Title deed having no possession is only a paper transaction. Title deed is not acted upon unless possession is handed over to the title holder.
xii. It transpires from the record that the judgment-debtor-respondent No. 2 is engaged in furniture business in local district. In order to expand his business, he took loan of Tk. 3 lakhs later on extended upto 5 lakhs by mortgaging his last resort homestead measuring 0.1650 acres situated within the periphery of Kushtia District town on 10.03.2002. At the relevant time of issuance of certificate of ownership the value of the said property was more than one crore. The Executing Court assigning cogent and very convincing reasons allowed the application of the judgmentdebtor. The main purpose of the Ain, 2003 is to realize the outstanding loan money of the Bank or any other Financial Institutions but not to snatch away the mortgage or any other property of the borrower. …City Bank Ltd Vs. Court of 1st JDJ & Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 217 ....View Full Judgment

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

Section 37 of Ain, 2003 regarding time limit for disposing of the execution case, is not mandatory rather it is directory.
The High Court Division observed that it has already been settled by a good number of cases that provision of section 37 of the Ain, 2003 regarding time limit for disposing of the execution case, is not mandatory rather it is directory. The Adalat misconceived the legal position and thereby considering the time frame for disposing of the execution case rejected the application for canceling the auction sale accepting the objected low price. Thus, the impugned order suffers from gross illegality and as such, it is liable to be interfered by this Court. .....Agrani Bank Ltd. -Vs.-Ministry of law, and others. (Spl.Original) 21 ALR (HCD) 85-89

No one be allowed to take any advantage of his own wrong equity follows the appropriate rules of law and does not replace or violate the law.
The High Court Division held that as per the established principles of law no one be allowed to take any advantage of his own wrong. As per section 33(2) of the Act, the Petitioner has forfeited all rights and privileges upon his failure to deposit the balance amount of bid money within the stipulated period of ten days time. Furthermore, there is no scope to interpret the law to give the Petitioner a technical or tactical advantage of a ninety-day extension in the name of Artha Rin Adalat (Amendment) Ordinance, 2007. This is because equity follows the appropriate rules of law and does not replace or violate the law. .....M. A. Hashem son of late Addul Aziz -Vs.- The Artha Rin Adalat No. 2, Dhaka and others (Spl.Original) 19 ALR (HCD) 225-236

The High Court Division found that the balancing act that was the intended purport of Section 33 in its earlier form, and as chiefly reflected in Section 33(4) through to Section 33(6kha) by dint of the post-2010 amendments, has continued undisturbed and unaltered since 2003 without changing or altering the character of the law. In this regard, the provision in Section 33(6ka) providing for a second execution case is found to lean heavily in a judgment-debtor's favour in prescribing the exclusion of value of the land or its reasonable value in determining the amount to be fetched in the Section 33(5) auction process. By that reason Section 33(6ka), in our view, is also a protective umbrella available to the judgment- debtor under Section 33(5). …..Nahar Enterprise -Vs.-Artha RinAdalat No. 3, Dhaka and others. 4 ALR 2014(2) 363

Such abdication of statutory authority and jurisdiction by the Adalat as a matter of course has led to the above-referred provisions being relegated by disuse to the unavoidable status as dead letters of the law in stark discordance with clear legislative intent to the contrary. …..Md. A.B. Mannaf Sheikh -Vs.- District Judge Court, Faridpur 3 ALR(2014)(1) 175

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

It is established principle of law that after issuance of the certificate under Section 33(5) and/or Section 33(7) of the Ain in respect of the mortgaged property in favour of the decree holder-Bank the execution case arising thereunder is finally disposed of in satisfaction of the decree and the executing court becomes functus officio.
The High Court Division held that on a plain reading of Section 33(7)(K) and 7(L) of the Ain, it appears that the provisions do not have any bearing or so to say it cannot circumvent the principle as it has been laid down by both the Divisions time and again. The contradictory decisions as it could be found in IFIC Bank’s case 15 BLT 425 and Salma Begum’s case 63 DLR HC does not apply in the instant case at all. Therefore, the High Court Division certainly finds merit and substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that with the granting of certificate under Section 33(5) or 33(7) of the Ain the Execution Case is finally disposed of and the executing court becomes functus officio. In the result the Rule is made absolute without any order as to cost. .....Bank Asia Limited -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram and others (Spl. Original) 15 ALR (HCD) 130-133

Section 33(5) allowing simply for possession of property, but only by way of a prerequisite for adjustment of a decretal claim by sale, be completely ignored in favour of granting title outright to the Bank under Section 33(7). on the clear structuring of provisions of Section 33 that leaves no scope for Sections 33(5), 33(6), 33(6ka) and 33(6kha) to be waived once Sections 33(1) and 33(4) have successively been relied upon. …..Nahar Enterprise -Vs.-Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka and others. 4 ALR 2014(2) 363

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

The very specific requirements of Section 33(7Kha) requiring a reconfirmation of either the mortgage of a property pertaining to the decree-related loan executed lawfully by its actual owner or of the property attached actually being the judgment-debtor's title-holding property. These Section 33(7Kha) provisions being very specific in their intent and objective indeed require. …..Khan A Sobur Trust -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka and others. 4 ALR 2014(2) 144

Section 33(7Ka) always to be read with Section 33(7Kha) and action there under to be effected only upon exhaustion of the investigation and reconfirmation process under Section 33(7Kha). …..Khan A Sobur Trust -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka and others. 4 ALR 2014(2) 144

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

The Petitioner Trust shall now be at liberty to duly place its claim regarding the property before the Adalat governed wholly by the provisions of Section 33(7Kha) of the Act and the Adalat will be obliged to probe into such claim and dispose of the Petitioner Trust's application in accordance with the directions and observation as hereinabove provided within the shortest possible time. …..Khan A Sobur Trust -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka and others 4 ALR 2014(2) 144

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

Since fraud has been appeared in conducting the auction within a short span of time and by submitting bids, the total auction process is a nullity and cannot sustain in eye of law.
This view of the High Court Division finds support in the case reported in 22 BLC(AD)139 wherein identical scenario having been found the Apex court held that fraud was perpetrated in conducting auction and consequently, the auction sale was set aside. Relevant portions of the said decision are quoted herein below:- “It appeared that the auction purchaser submitted tender at Taka 7,75,00,600 and two other bidders Md Abdul Aziz at Taka 1,00,60,000 and Nasimul Gani at Taka 50,00,000. The Artha Rin Adalat rejected the bids on 29-06-2005 on the reasoning that the price was shockingly low and that the proclamation of sale was not published in the locality. The decree holder again prayed for selling the property in auction under section 33(4) of the Ain. Thus time also three bidders, the auction purchaser submitted tender at Taka 7,75,50,600 the second bidder Md Abdul Aziz at Taka 1,01,00,000 and the third bidder Md Rojob Ali at Taka 40,00,000. This time the Adalat was of’ the view that the money offered by the highest bidder is higher than the bank’s claim of Taka 7,67,11,845.51 and therefore, despite filing an application under section 33(7) for issuing a certificate conferring title by the decree-holder, in the absence of opposition in accepting the highest bid, the prayer for issuing certificate is rejected. Accordingly it directed the auction purchaser to deposit the balance amount. Same auction purchaser submitted his first bid at Taka 7,75,50,600 and the Adalat rejected his bid on the reasoning that the amount was shockingly low. In the second bid he submitted tender exactly at the same price of Taka 7,75,50,600 with the difference of only fifty thousand more than his first bid. Two other bidders also submitted almost at similar price. How one can believe that this sale is not collusive, where the highest bid is at over seven crore Taka, the second bid is at taka one crore and the third bid is around Taka fifty lacs. The second bidder is the same person and the third bidder is although another person, it cannot altogether be ignored that this third bidders is none but the one set up by the emotion purchaser. Thus there is no gainsaying that the auction purchaser submitted three bids, one in his name and other persons have been set up by him in other to show that there was complaisance of formalities, but in order to avoid the deposit of huge money along with the bids as required by law a very low amount was quoted by two bidders. .....Agrani Bank Limited -Vs.- The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and others (Spl. Original) 18 ALR (HCD) 285-293

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

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.

Petitioner a fugitive since 9-8-2006 and being a fugitive obtained the Rule. It is well settled that a fugitive has no right to seek any kind of redress as against his grievance of awarding sentence. .....Nitai Kumar Mondol vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 62 DLR, 446.

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.

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.

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.

Petitioner a fugitive since 9-8-2006 and being a fugitive obtained the Rule. It is well settled that a fugitive has no right to seek any kind of redress as against his grievance of awarding sentence. .....Nitai Kumar Mondol vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 62 DLR 446.

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

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.

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

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

From a combined reading of sub-sections of section 34 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 it transpires that the Adalat is empowered to pass an order of warrant of arrest/civil imprisonment directly when no auction sale is possible to be held for any reason. The auction sale notice was published in the 'Daily Sonar Desh' on 19-2-2004 mentioning date of auction sale on 23-2-2004 at 3-00 PM but the property in question was not sold due to non-availability of the auction purchaser. Therefore, the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that no attempt was made to sell the property as per mandatory provision of section 34(9) of the Ain, 2003 by the respondent No. 2 before passing the impugned order of civil imprisonment is wholly untenable. .....Provat Kumar Das vs Agrani Bank, 15 BLC 180.

Attempt was taken for auction of the mortgaged property under section 33 of the Ain and due to non-participation of the bidder, the property could not be sold in auction. Thereafter, on application of the decree-holder-Bank, the Adalat passed order for six months' civil prison of the Judgment-debtors and issued warrants of arrest against the judgment-debtors accordingly. .....Abdul Kader vs Government of Bangladesh, 69 DLR 304.

The parties in their petition can provide for re-payment of the entire agreed dues in one installment. In the present case, it is agreed between the parties that the Judgment-debtor would re-pay the entire agreed dues of Taka 2 crore 7 lac by 31-12-2008. The learned Judge can still consider such a prayer within the ambit of section 49. Under such circumstances without issuing any Rule, the order dated 15-3-2007, (Annexure-D), passed by the Artha Rin Court, Comilla, in Artha Execution Case No. 339 of 2004, is declared illegal and is of no legal effect. .....Quayyaim Steel Mills Ltd vs Pubali Bank, 13 BLC 334.

Section 33—The irregularity in not taking prior permission is cureable as the condition being directory having no consequences. The mortgage has been effected and executable subject to taking permission before final disposal under section 33 of the Ain. The concerned officials of the lender Bank including its legal officer (if opinion is given by any officer or lawyer) and the borrower collusively committed fraud in creating the mortgage irregularly without taking previous permission and subsequently for taking advantage of the wrong, the wrong-doer (guarantor-mortgagor) has come to the Court to strike out the property from the plaint. Fraud being apparent, on the face of it, the borrower party should not be allowed to take advantage of this fraud. .....AB Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin (Spl Original) 75 DLR 644
Section 33—Schedule property shall remain in the plaint as mortgaged property. However, if the decree is passed and it needs to dispose of the mortgaged property in the execution process, the mortgagee Bank shall procure permission through Court from the RAJUK on payment of required transfer fee. .....AB Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 75 DLR 644

Since the provision does not provide any consequence for non- compliance of the time-frame, its deviation is not to be considered to be too fatal to vitiate an execution process. That there should be sufficient publicity of the proposed auction so that the maximum number of bidders could be invited for attending the auction. The date of publication of the notice as well as the date of holding the auction, both are to be included in computation of the 15 (fifteen) days' time-frame. .....Salahuddin vs Government of Bangladesh, 69 DLR 454.

It is the statutory duty of the executing court must follow the due procure, for ensuring that the property under auction is sold at a maximum price, So that the interest of the owner of mortgaged/attached property is protected, as far as possible. .....Swadesh Poultry vs Bangladesh Krishi Bank, 70 DLR 77.

The Ain is a special law providing special procedure for auction sale of the mortgaged property under section 33 of the Ain. The Adalat is empowered to pass an order for publishing auction sale notice of the mortgage property directly and the provision of Order XXI, rule 64 of the Code is not applicable relating to auction sale in Artha Ain Execution Cases. .....Afifa Sultana vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 63 DLR 354.

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.

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.

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

After the execution case was transferred under section 60(3) of the Ain the executing Court would proceed from the stage where the execution proceeding was lying pending for disposal. As such, issuance of sale certificate under section 33(5) of the Ain on the same day when execution case was restored without exhausting the procedures as provided under section 33(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Ain resorting to a short-cut way is not tenable in the eye of law. .....Udayan Garments (Pvt) Ltd vs Bangladesh 59 DLR 615.

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

The Adalat is not obliged to sell the property in any manner or at any price for satisfaction of the decree, particularly when the decree holder specifically raises objection to the highest offer being abnormally low and that the amount is too inadequate to satisfy the decretal dues. .....Agrani Bank Ltd vs Secretary, Ministry of law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, 20 BLC 329.

Section 33(1) has allowed 15 days time for inviting tender for auction. Section 48 of the Ain clearly stipulates that for the purpose of counting days under Artha Rin Ain only the working days of the court i.e. the days on which the court functions (বিচারকের কার্যদিবস) should be taken into consideration. Even the court in which the Judge-in-charge is sitting temporarily this section applies in verbatim. That is to say absolutely in terms of the law as it stands. .....Abdul Monayem Lili vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 67 DLR 358.

In Civil Revision No. 2573 of 2007, second execution case was started on the basis of certificate issued by the Adalat under section 33(5) of the Ain in connection with Artha Execution Case No. 76 of 2001, having failed to auction sale the mortgaged property and that the impugned order of warrant of arrest was made after issuance of show cause notice upon the judgment debtors providing opportunity to give reply as to why they should not be detained in civil prison. The petitioners did not appear before the Court. But within a period of one month from the date of issuance of the impugned order they have filed the present revisional application and obtained the present Rule and an interim order of stay. Since the petitioners have not come with clean hand they cannot seek for exercising Court's inherent jurisdiction in the name of ends of justice. Further, considering the relevant provisions of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and in the facts and circumstances of the case this Court cannot invoke its inherent power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. .....Syed Monjur Morshed vs Manager, Agrani Bank Ltd, 14 BLC 107, 501.

When the decree-holder filed an application as required under sub-section (7) of section 33 of the said Ain the Court is at liberty to issue certificate when "মালিকানাস্বত্ব পাইতে আগ্রহী মর্মে" application has been filed by the decree-holder. So, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of issuance of the certificate dated 15-9-2008, which is awaiting for registration under sub-section (8) of section 33 of the said Ain. .....Atiqullah vs Artha Rin Adalat, 16 BLC 486.

It is ex-facie clear that the Executing Court exercised its discretion properly keeping the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 33 of the Ain. The finding of the Executing Court that the bid money of the petitioner to the tune of Taka 6,10,00,000 was very low cannot be found fault within judicial review for justifiable reasons. .....Jubak Housing and Real Estate Development Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka (Spl Original) 23 BLC 186

If it has been informed by the decree holder bank that the proposed bid offer is shockingly low the Adalat upon endorsing the reason thereof may reject the proposal of the highest bidder. .....Dutch Bangla Bank Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat, 68 DLR 340.

Decree-holder institution, by not resorting to sub-section (4) of Section 33, has committed fraud on the Court by using the process of the same to grab the properties free of cost. This is a sample example of the abuse of process of the Court and the spirit of law for which we have no option but to interfere to prevent such gross injustice. .....Shamsunnahar vs Bangladesh, 19 BLC 67.

Sub-section (7) has also given a special leverage on the decree holder. According to the said provisions, notwithstanding the provisions under sub-sections (4) and(5), the decree holder will be at liberty to file an application for conferment of title on it by the Adalat, and once such application is made, the Adalat will even refrain from following the proceedings under sub-sections (4) and (5) and will confer such title on the decree holder through a certificate of title issued by it declaring such title. The only hurdle in the said provisions under sub-section (7) is that the provisions under sub-sections (1), (2), 2(Ka), 2(Kha), 2(Ga) and (3) of section 33 cannot be jeopardized. In other words, it recognizes the mandatory nature of the 1st auction in view of sub-sections (1), (2), 2(Ka), 2(Kha), 2(Ga) and (3). Thus, once the 1st auction is done and it fails for any reason, the decree-holder bank will be at liberty to either proceed for the 2nd auction and then for conferment of right to possession and enjoyment under sub-section (5) or it can ask for conferment of title under sub-section (7). This option of conferment of title can be exercised by the decree holder either immediately after the 1st auction or after conferment of right to possession and enjoyment of the mortgaged property or even after conclusion of the 2nd auction, though un successfully. This intention of the Legislature to give almost a free leverage to the decree holder is clear from the provisions mentioned under sub-section 6(Kha) and section (7) of section 33. .....Mosharaf Hossain (Md) vs Bangladesh, 67 DLR 199.

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.

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.

The execution case does not come to an end with the issuance of a certificate under section 33(5) of the Ain. Rather, it remains alive till the possession of the property alleged to have been sold in auction, was handed over to the auction purchaser. .....Salma Begum vs Sonali Bank Limited, 63 DLR 282.

The certificate has been issued by the Adalat under section 33(5) of the Ain, and, as such, there is no scope to follow the provision of paragraph (a) of the Guidelines by the Bank so far as it relates to sell of the mortgaged property but the provisions of section 33(5) of the Ain is to be followed. .....ABC Attire Ltd vs Bangladesh, 64 DLR 399.

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.

The execution case does not come to an end with the issuance of a certificate under section 33(5) of the Ain. Rather, it remains alive till the possession of the property alleged to have been sold in auction, was handed over to the auction purchaser. .....Salma Begum vs Sonali Bank Limited, 63 DLR 282.

The certificate has been issued by the Adalat under section 33(5) of the Ain, and, as such, there is no scope to follow the provision paragraph (U) of the Guidelines by the Bank so far as it relates to sell of the mortgaged property but the provisions of section 33(5) of the Ain is to be followed. .....ABC Attire Ltd. vs Bangladesh, 64 DLR 399.

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.

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.

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.

Application filed before the Adalat to set aside the certificate issued by Adalat cannot be decided by the District Judge on transfer because the District Judge has no original jurisdiction except appellate jurisdiction under Ain. Transfer of execution case to the Court of District Judge by the Adalat without disposing the application cannot be said an order of legal prudence. .....Sanjida Sarmin vs Kazi Zahid Hossain (Civil) 23 BLC 927

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.

When the certificate has been issued under section 33(5) in favour of the decree holder, the execution proceeding is disposed of as per section 33(9) of the Ain. Issuing the certificate under section 35(5) pre-supposes compliance of the formalities under section 33(1-4) of Ain. .....Sheuly Khanam vs Artha Rin Adalat, 2nd Court, Dhaka, 17 BLC 579.

Since, no property was mortgaged by the principal borrower, direction is not in any way put any embargo upon the Adalat to sell the properties mortgaged by the 3rd party mortgagors including the properties of the respondents Nos. 2-10 in auction and to issue certificate under section 33(5) of the Ain, 2003 in favour of the petitioner. .....Rupali Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No.4, Dhaka (Spl Original) 24 BLC 604

Auction purchaser could have easily drawn the attention of the executing Adalat to the alleged fact that he had been given wrong plot pursuant to the auction sale under 33(5) of the Ain. In which case, the Adalat concerned could have easily recalled the order by which the Artha Rin execution case was disposed of after such sale. .....South-East Bank Limited vs Md ASM Rubaiyat Forman (Civil) 27 BLC 447

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

Admittedly, the second execution case was filed by the decree holder-bank without adjustment of the value of the mortgaged property as required under section 33(6Ka) of the Ain. The decree holder-bank filed the second execution case in violation of the provision of the Ain and obtained the order of civil imprisonment against the writ-petitioner, which appears to have been passed beyond the scope of law. .....Mehmood Alam Nadim vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 28 BLC 538

The execution case under the Ain does not come to an end unless the possession of the property is handed over to the auction purchaser. Birendra Nath Roy vs Rupali Bank Ltd, 18 BLC 118.

The execution case under the Ain does not come to an end unless the possession of the property is handed over to the auction purchaser. Birendra Nath Roy vs Rupali Bank Ltd, 18 BLC 118.

Legislature has deliberately given sub-sections 6(Kha) and (7) a separate status. Thus, the provisions under sub-section 6(kha) are such that they can be followed even not withstanding whatever contained in the entire section 33. This means, once the right to enjoyment and possession of the mortgaged property is conferred on the decree holder, it will be at liberty to even immediately apply for conferment of title under sub-section (7). In which case, it will not be obligatory on it to try to sell the property through 2nd, 3rd or 4th auctions. To obtain that special status under sub-section 6(kha), the precondition is that the right to possession and enjoyment of the property is conferred on the decree holder in view of sub-section (5). .....Mosharaf Hossain (Md) vs Bangladesh, 67 DLR 199.

Title of mortgaged property—Section 33(5) of the Ain, 2003 provides that after due compliance of sub-sections (1)(2)(3) and (4) of section 33 of the Ain, if it is not possible to sell the mortgaged property in auction, then the right and possession of the mortgaged property will be vested upon the bank. Consequently, at the instance of the bank the Adalat rightly passed an order conferring title of the petitioner's mortgaged property upon the bank and directed to issue a certificate to that effect. .....Setara Begum vs Al-Arafah Islami Bank Ltd, 61 DLR 791.

Transfer of title under section 33(7) does not indeed envisage the right of foreclosure. In the scheme of the Act, foreclosure in the sense of a limitation on the right of redemption can only arise when associated with an auction sale contemplated in section 5(4). Beyond that, section 37(7) appears to this Court to operate independently of section 5(4) and the provisions in section 33(7) in not contemplating a transfer by sale must be found also not to envisage the existence of the corresponding right of foreclosure. The right of redemption under section 33(7) is always found to be alive and extant. .....World Resources Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka, 66 DLR 637.

The provisions under sub-section (7) have made it clear that the Legislature wanted to give a free leverage to the decree holder bank or financial institution to apply for the conferment of title at any stage after the 1st auction is done and failed. Therefore, just holding of the 2nd auction will not be a bar against the decree-holder bank preventing it from applying to get the title of the mortgaged property under sub-section (7). .....Mosharaf Hossain (Md) vs Bangladesh, 67 DLR 199.

The transfer of title under section 33(7) does not indeed envisage the right of foreclosure. In the scheme of the Act, foreclosure in the sense of a limitation on can the of redemption only arise when associated with an auction sale contemplated in section 5(4). Beyond that, section 33(7) appears to this Court to operate independently of section 5(4) and the provisions of section 33(7) in not contemplating a transfer by sale must be found also not to envisage the existence of the corresponding right of foreclosure. The right of redemption under section 33(7) is always found to be alive and extant. .....Rokaiya Amin vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Finance Division, Ministry of Finance, 67 DLR 545.

Going through the provision laid down in Article 42 and 31 of the Constitution but it appears that there is no scope to say that the provision laid in section 33(7) in any way is found to be inconsistent the provision laid down in the Constitution and hence there is no merit in the Rule in that Count. .....Atiqullah vs Artha Rin Adalat, 16 BLC 489.

The petitioners are the third party and their case is that they are the bonafide purchaser of the mortgage property and they are willing to clear up the outstanding dues of the Bank. The petitioners can have their remedy under section 32 of the Ain, 2003, if so advised. .....Dr Md Habibuzzaman Chowdhury vs Bangladesh, 64 DLR 281.

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.

Sub-section 7 envisages vesting of ownership of the property of the Judgment-debtor upon the decree-holder. The said vesting of ownership includes delivery of possession of the property. Without the delivery of possession, the execution case cannot be disposed of. IFIC Bank vs Merina Fashions, 15 BLT 425.

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

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.

Sections 33(7)(ক) and 7(খ)— On a plain reading of Section 33(7)(ক) and 7(খ) of the Ain, it appears that the provisions do not have any bearing or so to say it cannot circumvent the principle as it has been laid down by both the Divisions time and again. The contradictory decisions as it could be found in IFIC Bank's case ' 15 BLT 425 and Salma Begum's case 63 DLR does not apply in the instant case at all. Therefore, we certainly find merit and substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that with the granting of certificate under section 33(5) or 33(7) of the Ain the execution case is finally disposed of and the executing court becomes functus officio. .....Bartk Asia Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram (Spl Original Jurisdiction) 71 DLR 338

In order to exclude the property from the list of Arpito Sompati, the Bank has to incur a considerable period of time, therefore, the Bank could not execute a registered deed in favour of the petitioners, has been sufficiently explained in the affidavit-in-opposition. There is no apparent fault of the petitioners. The auction value of the property was Taka 5,04,000 and Taka 9,60,000 was mouza value for the purpose of registration in 2007. In 2020 the mouza rate is Taka 80,93,000. Property is valued at Taka 9,60,000 (mouza value of 2007) for the purpose of registration of property that will be justified from legal and equitable perspective. .....Asraful Alam (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh (Spl Original) 74 DLR 126

At least an attempt should be taken for auction sale of the property by publishing notice in the news paper. If the property/mortgaged property could not be sold inspite of such attempt to auction sale the property, in such case, only the Bank may file an application for having title to the property in its favour. .....Saboj Traders vs Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 24 BLC 769

Since fraud has been appeared in conducting the auction within a short span of time and by submitting bids, the total auction process is a nullity and cannot sustain in eye of law. .....Agrani Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 27 BLC 10

Non delivery of possession to the auction purchaser, is not material in making the sale absolute and closed in the execution case. If the auction purchaser needs possession through Court in that case he can file proper application before the Adalat under section 33(7ka) of the Act and in that case the Adalat can pass appropriate order directing the judgment-debtor or possessor or the owner to hand over possession to the auction purchaser. But this position as to non-delivery of possession will no way help the petitioner to question the auction sale as well as to set-aside the auction sale when a right to property was accrued in favour of bonafide purcharer for value long back in 2009. .....Enayet Hossain vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 29 BLC 74.

There has been no scope to entertain any application of the judgment-debtor to pay decreetal dues in installment. Farzana Amin vs Government of People's Republic of Bangladesh (Spl Original), 72 DLR 326

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Held; Since the Artha Rin Adalat issued a certificate directly under Section 33(7) of the Ain without allowing prior necessary recourse to the provisions of Section 33(5) and (6) the impugned Order passed by the court is found to be illegal. .....Mrs. Khazeda Bagum Vs. Shahjalal Islami Bank Ltd. & Anr 24BLT (HCD)290

Application under Order 21 Rule 90 is not applicable in the instant case since the procedure of the Rule 64,65 and 66 of Order 21 of the code of Civil procedure has not been complied with and in Order 21 Rule 90 specifically mentioned that where any immovable property had been sold in auction in a decree, but the instant case no auction procedure has been followed by the trial court and the court followed the procedure of Artha Rin Adalat Ain that is section 33 of Sub-sections 1, 2 and 4 and thereafter issued certificate in favour of the Bank. Mr. Md. Nurul Amin, learned Senior Counsel further submits that since the petitioners claimed that the suit property has not been handed over in favour of the opposite party Nos. 7-10 in such a case the petitioners has option to apply provision of Sub-section 1(ka) and 1 (Kha)of section 33 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain as contended by the learned Counsel of the opposite party Bank.
Held; on the basis of the application of the decree holder the court may hand over the possession of the property to the purchaser and Sub-section 7 (kha) provides that the court should reconfirm before handing over the suit property to the purchaser. So it is clear that the petitioner has scope to invoke the said procedure of law before handing over the property to the opposite party Nos.7-10. It also appears that the petitioners filed partition Suit No.192 of 2001 before the Joint District Judge 1 Court Dhaka and which is pending and the petitioner if succeed in the said case also can restore their right in applying the procedure of law. .....Aminullah & Ors Vs Al-Arafah Islami Bank Itd. & Ors 27BLT(HCD)281

As there was no allegation of fraud or irregularities in the auction sale process, both the Courts below without existence of the legal requirements as laid down in Order XXI, rule 90 of the Code Civil Procedure acted illegally in allowing the Misc. Case under the said rule for setting aside the auction sale and the same has occasioned failure of justice. .....Babul Chandra Sheel Vs. Rupali Bank Ltd and others, (Civil), 2 LNJ 433

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

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

Computation of 15 days
From a plain reading of the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Ain, 2003, it is crystal clear that there should be a gap of 15 (fif-teen) days’ time between the date of publication of the auction notice and the date of holding the auction. Since the above provision does not provide any consequence for non-compliance of the time-frame, its deviation is not to be considered to be too fatal to vitiate an execution process. All that the law contemplated is that there should be sufficient publicity of the pro-posed auction so that the maximum number of bidders could be invited for attending the auction. As per the dictum laid down in the case of Md. Rafiqul Islam Faruq Vs Bangladesh VIII ADC 439 that the date of publication of the notice as well as the date of holding the auction, both are to be included in computation of the 15 (fifteen) days’ time-frame. Salahuddin and others -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others. (Spl. Original) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 131 ....View Full Judgment

If the ratio of the case of Md Rafiqul Is-lam Faruq Vs Government of Bangladesh reported in VIII ADC 439 is read in con-junction with the ratio laid down in the case of Peninsular Shipping Service Vs. Faruq paint 59 DLR (AD) 26, the inevitable con¬clusion at which anyone is led to arrive is that 15 (fifteen) days time, as provided in Section 33(1) of the Ain, 2003 means nor¬mal 15 (fifteen) days, as opposed to 15 (working) days. Salahuddin and others -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others. (Spl. Original) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 131 ....View Full Judgment

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.

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

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

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

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

All the substituted heirs of the principal debtor, as well as the third party mortgagor and the third party guarantor, are exempted from civil imprisonment. It transpires to the High Court Division that for ordering civil imprisonment against a judgment-debtor (দায়িক) for compelling him to satisfy the decree, the legislature does not subject the heirs of the principal debtor, the third party mortgagor and the third party guarantor; the legislature makes the heirs, for the purpose of this section liable only to the extent of the property, not to the extent to their body. The legislature does not subject the heirs, who were not present or involved with the sanctioning of the loan, to civil imprisonment to satisfy the decree. Therefore, the High Court Division hold that all the substituted heirs of the principal debtor, as well as the third party mortgagor and the third party guarantor, are exempted from civil imprisonment. .....Iqbal Mahmud and others. -Vs.- Agrani Bank Limited and others. (Spl. Original) 26 ALR (HCD) 42

In an execution case, the decree-holder-bank may file an application for issuance of warrant of arrest under the provision of section 34(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. Under section 34(1) of the Ain, an order for civil custody (civil prison)/warrant of arrest may be passed on an application filed by the decree-holder. In the instant case, the application is not signed by any authorized officer of the Bank and it is neither verified nor supported by any affidavit and, as such, the impugned order dated 27.02.2005 for issuance of warrant of arrest against the judgment-debtors cannot be said to be lawful.
It transpires to the High Court Division that the application for warrant of arrest was filed on 23.02.2004 by the learned Advocate for the Bank for issuance of warrant of arrest against the judgment-debtors. It further appears that the application is neither verified nor supported by any affidavit. Moreover, the application is not also signed by any authorized officer of the Bank. In an execution case, the decree-holder-bank may file an application for issuance of warrant of arrest under the provision of section 34(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Ain). Under section 34(1) of the Ain, an order for civil custody (civil prison)/warrant of arrest may be passed on an application filed by the decree-holder. In the instant case, the application is not signed by any authorized officer of the Bank and it is neither verified nor supported by any affidavit and, as such, the impugned order dated 27.02.2005 for issuance of warrant of arrest against the judgment-debtors cannot be said to be lawful. In view of discussions made foregoing paragraphs, vis-a-vis the law, the High Court Division finds merit in this Rule. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute. .....M/S Anika Agro Farming Complex -Vs.- Ministry of Law, and others (Spl. Original) 23 ALR (HCD) 16

Civil detention— The Artha Rin Adalat may pass an order for civil detention of a judgment -debtor when an application substantiating facts in support of the claim is filed before it. Such an application requires judicial determination and as the application should be filed with an affidavit or in the alternative it should be verified by the authorised agent of the applicant decree-holder in terms of Rule 19, Chapter-I Volume-I of the C.R.O in the manner as prescribed by Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. …..Md. Ohiduzzaman Mia alias Mukul Mia -Vs.- Government 2 ALR (2013)(HCD) 117

The right of a judgment-debtor to challenge the legality of the order of this civil imprisonment passed under section 34(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 cannot be denied on the ground that he did not surrender before the Adalat which passed that order.
A judgment-debtor against whom an warrant of arrest is pending in a case of civil nature, cannot be termed as a fugitive and the door of justice is not closed for him.
A Judgment Debtor can not be treated as a fugitive accused and so, he did not require to surrender to the concerned Court before challenging the impugned order awarding civil detention under section 34 of the Act, 2003. Therefore, the writ petition is quite maintainable.
A 3rd party guarantor involved with the loan shall also be impleaded in the suit as defendant alongwith the principal borrower and the mortgagor and that the decree, if any, shall be effective against all defendants jointly and severally and the execution case shall proceed simultaneously against all the judgment debtors. Therefore, section 34(1) applies to all the judgment debtors to compell them to repay the decretal dues.
An application for judicial determination either by verification in accordance with Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by swearing affidavit by the applicant.
The High Court Division held that filing the application under section 34 (1) of the Act, 2003 civil detention of judgment debtor is sought for by the decree holder applicant. As such, the Adalat has to dispose of it awarding civil detention or rejecting the prayer. Hence, the applicant needs to substantiate the facts in the application for determination by the Adalat. Thus, considering facts of the application, judicial determination has to make by the Adalat awarding civil imprisonment or not. Therefore, the Bank requires to file the application in accordance with Chapter-1, Rule 19 of the Civil Rules and Orders (CRO) read with Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But from the application (Annexure-C and C1) filed by the decree holder Bank, the High Court Division does not find this compliance. In the circumstances, the High Court Division is of the view that without verification or affidavit, putting signature at the top of the application alone is not enough to consider an application under section 34(1) of the Act, 2003. High Court Division in the case of AKM Tofazzal Hossain and others Vs Rupali Bank Ltd. and others reported in 64 DLR (HCD) 435 and the case of Md. Ohiduzzaman Mia alias Mukul Mia Vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others reported in 2 ALR (HCD) 117, also decided the issue earlier holding that the application for civil detention under section 34 of the Act, 2003 has to be filed by the decree holder either by swearing affidavit or making verification in accordance with Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In particular, in the case reported in 2 ALR (HCD) 117 a Division Bench of the High Court Division (one of us was a party) held as under: “10. On an application under section 34(1) of the Ain, 2003 the Adalat may pass an order for civil detention and as such, it has to be filed substantiating facts in support of the claim for issuing warrant of arrest to detain the judgment debtor (petitioner) by awarding civil detention. Therefore, the application requires judicial determination and as per Rule 19, chapter-I, Volume-I of the C.R.O, the said application should be filed with an affidavit or in the alternative it should be verified by the authorized person of the applicant (decree holder bank) in the manner as prescribed by Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of legal requirement, we hold that Annexure-D to the writ petition, is not a proper application in the eye of law and as such, the impugned order issuing warrant of arrest has been passed without any lawful application on behalf of the decree holder.” Considering the above ratio and in view of observations made above, the High Court Division is led to hold that the present application praying for civil detention of the judgment debtor has not been filed in accordance with section 34(i) of the Act, 2003 and so the impugned order issued on the basis of this application, can not sustain in the eye of law. In view of above discussions. The Rule Nisi finds merit. In the result, the Rule Nisi is made absolute. .....Md. Jahirul Hoque -Vs- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram and others. (Spl. Original) 27 ALR (HCD) 150

Requiring at least one attempt for selling of property before issuance of warrant of arrest or before passing any order of civil detention. …..A.B.M. Liton -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh 3ALR(2014)(1) 238

The Artha Rin Adalat is empowered to issue warrant of arrest and Order of detention against the judgment-debtor subject to other provisions contained in sub-section 2 to 13. Sub-section 9 of Section 34 provides that before issuance of warrant of arrest and Order of detention at least auction to be held once and it is the sine qua non to the issuance of order of detention but in the present case no property was mortgaged by the borrower as security against loan to be sold in auction. However, the loan was secured by an Insurance Policy. As per terms of the Policy the Insurance Company i.e. SBC as guarantor is legally obliged to pay the outstanding dues of the Bank in the event of failure of the borrower judgment-debtors. If High Court Division consider that the beneficiary of the Insurance Policy is the Judgment \Debtors in that case section 36 of the Ain also provides provision for recovery of decretal amount from the persons from whom the money is due and owing to the judgment-debtor. …..Md. Abdul Jalil & others -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 2nd Court, Dhaka, & another (Spl. Original) 8 ALR (HCD) 101-104

The Artha Rin Adalat is empowered to issue warrant of arrest and Order of detention against the judgment-debtor subject to other provisions contained in sub-section 2 to 13. Sub-section 9 of Section 34 provides that before issuance of warrant of arrest and Order of detention at least auction to be held once and it is the sine qua non to the issuance of order of detention but in the present case no property was mortgaged by the borrower as security against loan to be sold in auction. However, the loan was secured by an Insurance Policy. As per terms of the Policy the Insurance Company i.e. SBC as guarantor is legally obliged to pay the outstanding dues of the Bank in the event of failure of the borrower judgment-debtors. If High Court Division consider that the beneficiary of the Insurance Policy is the Judgment \Debtors in that case section 36 of the Ain also provides provision for recovery of decretal amount from the persons from whom the money is due and owing to the judgment-debtor. …..Md. Abdul Jalil & others -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 2nd Court, Dhaka, & another (Spl. Original) 8 ALR (HCD) 101-104

From a combined reading of those sub-sections to section 34 of the Ain, 2003 it transpires that the Adalat is competent enough to award civil imprisonment to the extent of 6(six) months to the judgment debtor/s for recovery of decretal amount on an application filed by the decree-holder Bank when no auction sale is possible to be held for any reason. On a careful exmination of the application under section 34 of the Ain, 2003, it appears that in the application under section 34 of the Ain, 2003 for issuing warrant of arrest against the judgment debtors the concerned official/authority of the Bank neither put his signature nor made any verification/affidavit thereto and therefore, it cannot be said that the application in question was filed by the decree-holder-Bank as per provision of section 34(1) of the Ain, 2003. In the result, the Rule is made absolute without any order as to cost. The impugned order dated 28-9-2004 insorfar as it relates to warrant of arrest is hereby declared to have been made without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. However, the decree-holder-Bank shall still approach before the Adalat for issuance of warrant of arrest as per provisions of section 34(1) of the Ain, 2003 if he so likes. .....Sheikh Nazmul Haque vs Bangladesh, 14 BLC 107.

Since the legislature has authorised the Adalat vide section 34 of the Ain of 2003 to issue warrant of arrest to detain him in civil prison as a mode of recovery of the decretal amount speedily hence it is not unjust, unfair or unreasonable, resulting to declare it ultra vires the Article 31 of the Constitution. It is to be remembered that reasonable and non-arbitrary exercise of decision is an inbuilt requirement of good piece of legislation which cannot be knocked down by the Court which will go to undermine the act of parliament rather to be reduced to oligarchy of judges which is neither desirable nor can it be brought within the scheme of the Constitution. In view of the above, there is no requirement to issue another notice before issuance of the process of arrest under section 34(1) of the Ain of 2003 at the execution stage in the name of natural justice. .....ABM Shirajum Monir vs Subordinate Judge, 14 BLC 716.

It appears that warrant of arrest has been issued against the judgment debtor petitioner after following the provisions of section 34 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. Hence the Rule fails. .....Ziaul Huq vs Artha Rin Adalat, 14 BLC 809.

From a combined reading of those sub-sections of section 34 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 it manifests that the Adalat is empowered to pass an order of Warrant of Arrest/Civil Imprisonment directly on the basis of an application filed by the decree-holder bank when no auction sale is possible to be held for any reason. .....Sujit Kumar Mondal vs Bangladesh, 13 BLC 391.

Warrant of Arrest—The application is silent as to whether any property is mortgaged/pledged/lien in favour of the Bank which could not be sold due to any reason or whether no such property is available for sale to realise the decretal amount. The application filed by the Bank is thus vague. It appears to us that warrant of arrest was issued against the Judgment-debtor petitioner without following the provisions of section 34(9) and (10) of the Ain. .....Jahangir Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat, 61 DLR 167.

Section 34—A new provision under section 34 has been introduced under Ain, 2003 that makes an elaborate, exhaustive and independent provision for issuing warrant of arrest. The provision of special law shall override all other laws in force that includes the Code. The provision of section 34 of the Ain is absolutely independent and self-contained. .....Kanika Begum vs Artha Rin Adalat, 64 DLR 276.
Section 34—Since section 34 of the Ain has not made any synonymous provision like that of section 56 of the Code the Court can exercise its discretion on the same but in so doing there cannot be any gender discrimination as the same would certainly go against the principle of the Constitution of the Republic. .....Kanika Begum vs Artha Rin Adalat, 64 DLR 276.

Section 34 is exclusive, independent and exhaustive which cannot be subjected to or circumvent by other provisions of Ain. .....Mostafa Ahmed vs Government of Bangladesh, 65 DLR 294.

Fugitive—The term 'fugitive' disqualifying a person to get any relief from the Court is applicable for criminal proceedings. Artha Rin Suit is a clear and simple suit of civil nature and in execution of the decree passed therein the execution case is also a proceeding of civil nature. A Judgment-debtor against whom an warrant of arrest is pending in a case of civil nature, cannot be termed as a fugitive and the door of justice is not closed for him. .....Mirza Ahsan Habib vs The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 65 DLR 579.

Section 34 is exclusive, independent and exhaustive which cannot be subjected to or circumvent by other provisions of Ain. .....Mostafa Ahmed vs Government of Bangladesh, 65 DLR 294.

Petitioner a fugitive since 9-8-2006 and being a fugitive he obtained the Rule. It is well settled that a fugitive has no right to seek any kind of redress as against his grievance of awarding sentence. .....Nitai Kumar Mondol vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 62 DLR 446.

The judgment-debtor can directly be arrested and kept in civil imprisonment if any auction for sale of property could not be held for any reason under sub-section (9) of the Ain. It appears from material on record auction was held twice. It is patently clear that in such situation issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner was also not illegal. .....Aleya Begum vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 76 DLR 291.

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.

The provisions of section 51 and Order XXI, rule 37 the Code provide for issuance of show cause notice upon the Judgment-debtors before issuance of warrant of arrest as to why he should not be committed to prison on some ground such as judgment-debtors likely to abscond, dishonesty transfer, conceal, remove his property, etc.
However, this provision is not also mandatory in all cases as not be Order XXI, rule 37 also provides that such notice shall not be necessary if the Court is satisfied by affidavit or otherwise that with the object of delaying the execution of the decree, the judgment-debtor will likely abscond, etc. These provisions of section 51 and Order XXI, rule 37 of the Code are incorporated as a measure of punishment under certain circumstances. On the other hand, section 34 of the Ain empowers the Adalat to detain the Judgment-debtor in civil prison (civil custody) as a measure to compel him to pay the decretal money and not as measure of punishment.
Therefore, object of section 51 read with Order XXI rule 37 of the Code and the object of দেওয়ানী আটকাদেশ under section 34 are not the same. Moreover, the provisions of section 51 and Order XXI, rule 37 are relating to Money Decree passed in a Money suit but not in a suit for recovery of loan by financial institution though it may be called a Money Decree but for the later a special law, the Ain, has been enacted by the Parliament. Section 34(10) of the Ain provides that if for any reason auction sale is not possible the Judgment-debtor may be arrested and detained in civil prison/civil custody "সরাসরি'' (directly) Since the word "সরাসরি'' (directly) has been used in section 34(10) of the Ain, it cannot be interpreted that prior show cause notice is necessary as the meaning of section 34(10) would be nugatory is such a case. Thus, the provisions of section 51 and order XXI, rule 37 of the Code are in conflict with the provisions of section 34(1)(9)(10) of the Ain. Under section 26 of the Ain the provision of the Code is applicable so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Ain which includes the provision of section 34 of the Ain. Moreover, under section 30 of the Ain special provision has been made for publishing notice after filing of the execution case under certain circumstances.
From the sub-sections (9) and (10) of section 34 of the Ain, there is nothing to show that there is any scope of issuing any show cause notice before issuing warrant of arrest rather it appears that warrant of arrest may be issued directly. What is not in the law itself cannot be imported in the law by way of interpretation.
From the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, it transpires that the Appellate Division accepted the decision of the High Court Division to the effect that warrant of arrest may be issued directly if no auction is possible for any reason and the decision of the Appellate Division is binding on us. .....Manik K Bhattacherjee vs Artha Rin Adalat, 16 BLC 195.

In the present Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 the legislature by incorporating section 44 has expressly debarred filing revisional application against an interlocutory order passed by the Adalat pending execution proceeding. The impugned orders passed by the Adalat under section 34 of the Ain, 2003 in the present cases are, no doubt, interlocutory orders. Accordingly, in view of section 44 of the Ain those orders are not revisable under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. As such, all the respective Rules issued under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure are liable to be discharged as being not maintainable. .....Syed Monjur Morshed vs Manager, Agrani Bank Ltd, 14 BLC 501.

Section 34 of the Ain is an independent section making provisions for issuing order of warrant of arrest in a fit case. .....Ali Ajgar vs Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Finance, 69 DLR 505.

The words and phrases full term (পরিপূর্ণ মেয়াদের জন্য) for every reason shall imply only and only a period of 6 (six) months. There is no ambiguity in the statute on that score. No other interpretation can be given other than this. It is the only literal interpretation which can be well perceived from the scheme of section 34 of Ain, 2003 as a whole. .....Janata Bank Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 71 DLR 487

Artha Rin Adalat Ain, which is a special law, specifically fixed the maximum period of sentence up to which a person can be detained in the civil imprisonment is 6 (six) months. This is the maximum sentence and also the minimum because if we glean section 34(1) which enjoins that a person can be detained in the civil jail up to 6 (six) months and then section (5) of section 34 clearly provides for two situations in a disjunctive manner (1) that a person can be confined in the civil jail till the realization of the entire decretal amount or (2) till serving 6 (six) months in the custody, whichever is earlier, that is to say that if a person has been detained in the civil custody for a period of 6 (six) months and during the said period, the decretal amount has been paid up in its entirety then at once he will be released from the civil imprisonment. But if the decretal amount is not paid off then he has to suffer civil imprisonment up to 6 (six) months. .....Janata Bank Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 71 DLR 487

Amended section 22 of the Ain itself is binding upon the Court that is to say that the Court has to take initiative for mediation, of course in a fit case. .....Technomech Engineering (Pvt) Ltd vs Judge, Artha Rin Court No.2, Dhaka, 18 BLC 798.

Bank without taking recourse to provisions of law directly filed an application praying for issuance of warrant of arrest and order of detention which is palpably illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. The Order shows that the Adalat in issuing warrant of arrest and detaining the petitioners for six months in civil jail has assigned the reason only stating that the Judgment-debtor failed to appeal before the Court and to show cause in spite of publishing notice under section 30 of the Ain in the Dailies, but the Ain does not say so. .....Abdul Jalil (Md) vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 2nd Court, Dhaka, 67 DLR 475.

It appears that the application has been filed by the learned Advocate on behalf of the Bank but the application is neither signed by the official/ authority of the Bank nor the application contains the verification/ affidavit thereto and therefore, it cannot be said that the application in question was filed by the decree-holder Bank as per provision of section 34(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. .....Golam Haider vs Bangladesh, 15 BLC 831.

From the application filed by the Bank under section 34(1) of the Ain it transpires that the said application was filed by Mr Harunur Rashid, Senior officer of the Bank on 3-4-2004. Therefore, it is evident that authority was given to Md Harunur Rashid by the Bank on 9-1-2008 and the application was filed by Md Harunur Rashid on 3-4-2008 before the Adalat for issuance of warrant of arrest against the Judgment-debtors by virtue of the said authorization letter. On examination of the said application it appears that there in no illegality in the said application rather it has been filed in consonance with the provision of the section 34 (1) of the Ain. .....Manik K Bhattacherjee vs Artha Rin Adalat, 16 BLC 195.

On close appraisal of the materials on record it transpires to that after issuance of warrant of arrest dated 13-11-2005 the Judgment-debtor-petitioner did not appear in the Court below. He remained fugitive and being fugitive he obtained the present Rule. It is well settled that a fugitive has no right to seek any kind of redress as against his grievance of issuance of warrant of arrest. .....Bashir Ullah Master vs Bangladesh, 61 DLR 760.

Section 34(1) itself clearly tells the civil imprisonment which is imposed on the Judgment-debtors under this section is not any punishment for committing any offence, rather it is only for the purpose of making them compelled to pay the decreetal money. .....Ziaur Rahman (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat, 64 DLR 189.

The Bank is at liberty to file fresh application under section 34(1) of the Ain for Civil prison (civil custody)/ issuance of warrant of arrest against the Judgment-debtors in accordance with law provided attempt was taken earlier for auction sale of the mortgaged property at least once or auction was not possible due to any reason as provided in section 34(9)(10) of the Ain. Otherwise, the provision of section 34(9)(10) of the Ain is to be followed before taking action under section 34 (1) of the Ain. .....AKM Tofazzel Hossain vs Rupali Bank Ltd, 64 DLR 435.

The application seeking warrant of arrest on behalf of the bank should be officially signed, verified and followed by affidavit. If the same is absent the application is not tenable under the law. .....Marzan Abedin vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 4 Dhaka, 65 DLR 79.

It was the responsibility of the Adalat to take initiatives for auction sale of those moveable properties first before invoking power under section 34(1) of the Ain. In the absence of the process issuance of the order of warrant of arrest is palpably illegal for being passed in violation of section 34(9) of the Ain. .....Mohammad Saheed vs Government of Bangladesh, 66 DLR 254.

Under section 34(1) of the Ain, an order for civil custody (civil prison)/warrant of arrest may be passed on an application filed by the decree-holder. In the instant case the application is not signed by any authorized officer of the Bank and it is neither verified nor supported by any affidavit and, as such, the impugned order for 6 months civil custody/issuance of warrant of arrest cannot be said to be lawful. .....AKM Tofazzel Hossain vs Rupali Bank Ltd, 64 DLR 435.

The application seeking warrant of arrest on behalf of the bank should be officially signed, verified and followed by affidavit. If the same is absent the application is not tenable under the law. .....Marzan Abedin vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 4 Dhaka, 65 DLR 79.

Artha Rin Adalat reserve the powers to detain a person up to 6(six) months for realization of outstanding dues. .....Bodiuzzaman Milan (Md) vs BCB Limited, 18 MLR 137 = 17 BLC 426.

The application seeking warrant of arrest on behalf of the bank should be officially signed, verified and followed by affidavit. If the same is absent the application is not tenable under the law. .....Marzan Abedin vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 4 Dhaka, 65 DLR 79.

In the instant case warrant of arrest was issued against the Judgment-debtor in execution proceedings under section 34(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 in situation when no intending purchaser was forth coming pursuant to the attempts to sell the pledged property the learned judges of the High Court division found nothing wrong with the impugned order and held that the issuance of warrant of arrest against Judgment-debtor to compel him to pay the decretal dues is not dependent on the compliance with the provisions of subsection (5), (6), and (7) of section 33. .....MA Jaher vs Sonali Bank, 13 MLR 64.

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.

From a combined reading of the Ain 2003 as a whole, we find that the intention of the legislature is also to protect the rights of the substituted heirs of mortgagor and guarantor. Therefore, we hold that the Provisions of section 34(2) of the Ain 2003 are squarely applicable in respect of the substituted heirs of mortgagor and guarantor. .....Akramuzzaman (Md) alias Babu vs Artha Rin Adalat No. 1 Rajbari, 61 DLR 638.

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

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

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.

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.

Since the Bank and the Adalat proceeded against the petitioner before exhausting all the processes against the main borrower, the orders of arrest as well as the refusal of bail should not sustain in the eye of law. .....ABM Liton vs Bangladesh, 66 DLR 207.

Order of warrant of arrest is not a punishment but only a specific tool for recovery of outstanding dues. The law is well settled which is no longer a res integra. Section 34(9) of Ain enjoins that at least one attempt should be made for auction if there is any mortgaged property before issuance of order of warrant of arrest. If no property is mortgaged then section 34(10) comes into play. .....Ali Ajgar vs Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Finance, 69 DLR 505.

Since the provision so enunciated in section 34(10) clearly provides that, if it is not possible to hold a single auction sale under section 34(9) of the Ain in that case, the judgment-debtors can be arrested and put in Civil Prison. While legislate, sub-section 10 of section 34, the legislature very consciously foresaw that if there remains no property of the borrower to mortgage with the creditor-bank in such a posture, Court can clothe with the authority to issue warrant of arrest and detain the judgment-debtors in Civil Prison to compel the judgment-debtors to repay the decreetal dues. On going through the provision of section 34 we also find that, the legislature does not differentiate the borrower and guarantor in the event of issuing warrant of arrest and to detain in Civil Prison rather in every places in section 34 of 'the Ain' it denotes the word "judgment- debtor." .....Abdul Hafiz Salawat vs First Court of Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong (Spl Original) 23 BLC 260

The petitioner being a guarantor is not at all absolved from the liability and question of application of the section is redundant since no property has been mortgaged with the bank. The petitioner is only guarantor for all practical purpose. The legal position of a guarantor under law has been enumerated in section 128 of the Act which governs the field in it's strict implication. .....Abu Musa (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat Chittagong (Spl Original) 23 BLC 122

Since the provision of sub-section 10 of section 34 of the Ain empower the Adalat to issue warrant of arrest as well as to detain the judgement-debtor in default to re-paying the decreetal dues to the creditor bank, no illegality has been committed to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioner to compel him in repaying the decreetal dues. .....Abdul Hafiz Salawat vs First Court of Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong (Spl Original) 23 BLC 260

As per section 34(12) the petitioner cannot be put to civil imprisonment for the second time and for that reason the order impugned against is ex-facie illegal and without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect. .....Osarunnessa vs Bangladesh, 64 DLR 417.

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

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

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

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

In view of the provision of section 44(2) of the Ain of 2003 as well as the decisions of our Apex Court, the impugned orders in these revisional applications passed by the executing Court are interlocatory orders and hence revision under section 115 of the Code is not maintainable. The petitioners were directed to surrender before the Courts below within two months from the date of receipt of this order. .....Md. Bodiuzzaman Milon and another Vs. Bangladesh Commerce Bank Limited and others, (Civil), 2 LNJ 104

Difference between “the Accused” and “the Judgment Debtor:
In this case, a fundamental difference exists between two classes of justice seekers i.e “the Accused” and “the Judgment Debtor”. The term “Accused” has not been specifically defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). But the common parlance of ‘Accused’ is, a person who is charged with the commission of ‘Offence’. On the other hand, an ‘Offence’ is defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure as an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. On the other hand, under the Act, 2003 the term “Judgment Debtor” means a person against whom a decree has been passed ordering him to repay the decretal dues and it remains unsatisfied. In this particular case, the warrant of arrest was issued against a person who is, admittedly not an Accused person but a Judgment Debtor. The impugned order was passed against the Judgment Debtor (petitioner) awarding him civil detention under section 34 of the Act, 2003. ...Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 ....View Full Judgment

We find that the Artha Rin Adalat as a civil Court itself can pass order of civil detention under section 34(1) of the Act, 2003 against the Judgment Debtor and to execute/effect the civil detention, the Adalat is issuing warrant of arrest in order to make him available for serving out the awarded civil detention. Section 35 only provides that in issuing warrant of arrest, the Adalat shall be deemed to be a Magistrate of a 1st class. But nowhere in the provision, the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure is provided. However, in the last part of section 35 although the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is mentioned but it is related to prescribed Form of warrant of arrest and other matters for the time being until prescribed Form is prepared by the Artha Rin Adalat. It does not mean that the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been provided in issuing warrant of arrest. ...Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20

Section 34(1)— আমরা মনে করি অর্থঋণ আদালত দেওয়ানি আদালত হওয়ায় আইনের ৩৪(১) ধারার অধীন দায়িকের বিরুদ্ধে দেওয়ানি আটকের আদেশ দিতে পারে এবং দেওয়ানি আটকের আদেশ কার্যকরণের জন্য গ্রেফতারি পরোয়ানি জারি করতে পারে। তবে ৩৫ ধারা গ্রেফতারি পরোয়ানা জারির ক্ষেত্রে প্রথম শ্রেণীর ম্যাজিষ্ট্রেট হিসাবে বিবেচিত হবে। কিন্তু এখন থেকে ফৌজদারি কার্যবিধির বিধান প্রয়োগযোগ্য। ৩৫ ধারার শেষ অংশে ফৌজদারি কার্যবিধি, ১৮৯৮ উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে এবং অর্থঋণ আদালত আইনে ফরম নির্ধারিত না হওয়া পর্যন্ত গ্রেফতারি পরোয়ানার সংক্রান্ত ফরম ফৌজদারি কার্যবিধি দ্বারা নির্ধারিত হবে। তবে গ্রেফতারি পরোয়ানার ক্ষেত্রে ফৌজদারি কার্যবিধি প্রয়োজ্য নয়।...Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 ....View Full Judgment

Ratio requiring to surrender as laid down by our apex Court, is applicable only for the accused or convict in criminal proceeding not for a judgment debtor:
We consider that the petitioner’s civil liability was adjudicated by a civil Court under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain and the Code of Civil Procedure. Thereby he is determined as a Judgment Debtor and not an Accused or convict for criminal offence. According to section 34 of the Act, 2003, the civil detention has been awarded only for the purpose of compelling the judgment debtor to repay the decretal dues. As such, he does not require to surrender inasmuch as referred ratio requiring to surrender as laid down by our apex Court, is applicable only for the accused or convict in criminal proceeding. ...Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 ....View Full Judgment

We are led to hold that the petitioner, a Judgment Debtor can not be treated as a fugitive accused and so, he did not require to surrender to the concerned Court before challenging the impugned order awarding civil detention under section 34 of the Act, 2003. Therefore, the writ petition is quite maintainable. ...Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 ....View Full Judgment

Order under section 34 of the Act, 2003 is an interlocutory order in the execution proceeding and so, appeal cannot be preferred against such order in view of section 44(2) of the Act, 2003. ...Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 ....View Full Judgment

Chapter-1, Rule 19 of the Civil Rules and Orders (CRO) read with Order VI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 34 (1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Act, 2003:
Filing the application under section 34 (1) of the Act, 2003 civil detention of judgment debtor is sought for by the decree holder applicant. As such, the Adalat has to dispose of it awarding civil detention or rejecting the prayer. Hence, the applicant needs to substantiate the facts in the application for determination by the Adalat. Thus, considering facts of the application, judicial determination has to make by the Adalat awarding civil imprisonment or not. Therefore, the Bank requires to file the application in accordance with Chapter-1, Rule 19 of the Civil Rules and Orders (CRO) read with Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But from the application (Annexure-C and C1) filed by the decree holder Bank, we do not find this compliance. In the circumstances, we are of the view that without verification or affidavit, putting signature at the top of the application alone is not enough to consider an application under section 34(1) of the Act, 2003. ...Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 ....View Full Judgment

It appears that the time-frame for disposal of the execution case has been provided for in section 37 of the Act. But it would appear from the other provi­sions of the Act, notably section 49, that in case of allowing the installment an execution case can be extended beyond 150 days and at least for the next three years from the date of allowing an application filed by the judg­ment-debtor, praying for installments and agreed to by the decree-holder. In such a case, the period of time under section 37 of the Act would be subject to the application of the provisions of section 49 as envisaged under sub-section 2 of section 37 of the Act. It is apparent that the requirement of time-frame for disposal of an execution case, as stated in section 37, is merely directory and not mandatory. Monwar Hossain vs Government of Bangladesh 13 BLC 181.

Sections 37 and 38—Since from sections 37 to 38 of the Ain clearly provides how a decree of an Artha Rin Adalat will be executed so there has been no scope for the Judge to go beyond the provision by importing a provision of the Transfer of Property Act when fact remains the Ain is a special law and there has been a non-obstante clause in section 3 thereof. .....Dilara Begum vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 75 DLR 267

Sections 37 and 38— আইনের ৩৭ ও ৩৮ ধারায় অর্থঋণ আদালতের ডিক্রি কিভাবে কার্যকর হবে, সে সম্পর্কে স্পষ্টভাবে উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে এবং যখন ঘটনাটি বিশেষ আইন সংশ্লিষ্ট ও আইনের ৩ ধারায় নন-অবসটানটি ক্লস থাকায় বিচারকের বিধানের বাইরে সম্পত্তি হস্তান্তর আইন হতে বিধান আমদানির সুযোগ নেই। .....Dilara Begum vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 75 DLR 267

Section 37—In this backdrop, since there is no indication in the statute about the fate of the execution case if it does not conclude within 90+60=150 days our considered opinion is that the provision of section 37(1) of the Ain, 2003 so far it relates to timeframe for disposal of the execution case is directory and not at all mandatory. .....Abul Basher vs 1st Artha Rin Adalat, 13 MLR 208.

Section 37— ১৫০ দিনের মধ্যে ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নের মামলার নিষ্পত্তি না হলে মামলার ভাগ্য কিভাবে সে সম্পর্কে আইনে নির্দেশনা না থাকায় আমাদের বিবেচ্য সিদ্ধান্ত হলো আইনের ৩৭(১) ধারায় উল্লেখিত ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়ন মামলা নিষ্পত্তির জন্য নির্ধারিত সময় নির্দেশনামূলক এবং তা বাধ্যতামূলক নয়। .....Abul Basher vs 1st Artha Rin Adalat, 13 MLR 208.

It is apparent that the requirement of time-frame for disposal of an execution case as laid down in section 37 of the Ain, 2003, is merely directory and not mandatory. So, it cannot be said that if the execution case is not disposed of within 90+60=150 days it will be automatically stopped or dismissed. .....Sujit Kumar Mondal vs Bangladesh, 13 BLC 391.

It appears that the time-frame for disposal of the execution case has been provided for in section 37 of the Act. But it would appear from the other provisions of the Act, notably section 49, that in case of allowing the installment an execution case can be extended beyond 150 days and at least for the next three years from the date of allowing an application filed by the judgment debtor, praying for installments and agreed to by the decree-holder. In such a case, the period of time under section 37 of the Act would be subject to the application of the provisions of section 49 as envisaged under sub-section 2 of section 37 of the Act. It is apparent that the requirement of time-frame for disposal of an execution case, as stated in section 37, is merely directory and not mandatory. .....Monwar Hossain (Md) vs Government of bangladesh, 13 BLC 181.

If any time a certificate is allowed to sell the mortgage property by private negotiation under Order XXI, rule 83(1) and (2) of the Code certainly the same will also be inconsistent with the provision of section 37 of the Ain. where there is no provision to exclude time under sub-section (2). .....Kanak Rani Roy vs Bangladesh 65 DLR 364.

When a particular provision of Code will go to frustrate the intention of the legislature for expedite disposal of the Artha Rin Execution Case for the purpose of recovery of the decretal amount in accordance with the law, the court must not allow the Judgment-debtor to have a shelter under such other provisions which will go to drag it beyond any doubt. .....Kanak Rami Roy vs Bangladesh 65 DLR 364.

Sections 38 and 45 of the Act contain the provisions of amicable settlement. Under the above provisions of law, the Judgment-Debtors and the Decree-Holder Bank could settle the dispute between them at any stage of the suit and even at the execution stage. Since the mortgaged property has been redeemed and the execution proceeding was withdrawn following an amicable settlement between the Judgment-Debtors and the Decree- Holder, the auction purchaser Petitioner is not found to be entitled to any relief as prayed for in the present case. ...M. A. Hashem Vs. Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka & ors, (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 19

Section 38 and 45— দায়িক ও ডিক্রি ধারক ব্যাংক মামলার শুরুতে এমনকি ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নের সময়ও নিজেরা বিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি করতে পারত। হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ আরো মনে করে আইনের ৩৮ ও ৪৫ ধারায় শান্তিপূর্ণ বিরোধ নিষ্পত্তির বিধান রাখা হয়েছে। আইনের এই বিধানের অধীন দায়িক ও ডিক্রি ধারক ব্যাংক মামলার শুরুতে এমনকি ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নের সময়ও নিজেরা বিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি করতে পারত। বন্ধকী সম্পত্তি মুক্ত হয়েছে এবং দায়িক ও ডিক্রি ধারকের মধ্যে শান্তিপূর্ণভাবে বিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি হওয়ায় ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নের মামলা প্রত্যাহারের ফলে নিলাম ক্রেতা কোনো প্রতিকার পাওয়ার যোগ্য না। ...M. A. Hashem Vs. Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka & ors, (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 19 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 38, 45, 49 and 57— This court observes that since the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 is a special law and some latitude is being given to the judgment debtor to get the dispute settled through mediation or compromise and an extensive power has been given to the court to secure justice under sections 38,45,49 and 57 of the Act, the Artha Rin Adalat ought to have acted following the provisions contained in law as observed above by this court in supersession of the other provisions contained in any other law as per Section 3 of the Act. But to our utter surprise we see that the Artha Rin Adalat almost in every case is reluctant to extend its hands to help the litigants taking recourse to the above mentioned sections of the Ain making them virtually ineffective. …..Md. A.B. Mannaf Sheikh -Vs.- District Judge Court, Faridpur 3 ALR(2014)(1) 175

Sections 38, 45, 49 and 57— আদালতের পর্যবেক্ষণ হলো অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ একটি বিশেষ আইন এবং দায়িককে মধ্যস্থতা বা আপোষের মাধ্যমে বিরোধ মীমাংসায় সুযোগ প্রদান করেছে এবং অর্থঋণ আদালত আইনের ৩৮, ৪৫, ৪৯ ও ৫৭ ধারায় আদালতকে ন্যায় বিচার প্রতিষ্ঠায় ব্যাপক ক্ষমতা প্রদান করা হয়েছে এবং আদালত ৩ ধারার বিধান অনুসারে অন্য আইনের বিধানের পরিবর্তে এই আইনের বিধান অনুসরণ করবে। কিন্তু আমরা অবাক হচ্ছি যে, বিচারিক আদালত আইনের উপরোক্ত ধারার বিধান অনুসারে বিচারপ্রার্থীদের সহায়তা করতে নারাজ হওয়ায় কার্যত বিধানটি অকার্যকর হয়ে পড়েছে। …..Md. A.B. Mannaf Sheikh -Vs.- District Judge Court, Faridpur 3 ALR(2014)(1) 175

Sections 38 and 45— Judgment-Debtors and the Decree-Holder Bank could settle the dispute between them at any stage of the suit and even at the execution stage.
The High Court Division further not that sections 38 and 45 of the Act contain the provisions of amicable settlement. Under the above provisions of law, the Judgment-Debtors and the Decree-Holder Bank could settle the dispute between them at any stage of the suit and even at the execution stage. Since the mortgaged property has been redeemed and the execution proceeding was withdrawn following an amicable settlement between the Judgment-Debtors and the Decree- Holder, the auction purchaser Petitioner is not found to be entitled to any relief as prayed for. .....M. A. Hashem son of late Addul Aziz -Vs.- The Artha Rin Adalat No. 2, Dhaka and others (Spl.Original) 19 ALR (HCD) 225-236

Sections 38 and 45— দায়িক ও ডিক্রি ধারক ব্যাংক মামলার শুরুতে এমনকি ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নের সময়ও নিজেরা বিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি করতে পারত। হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ আরও মনে করে আইনের ৩৮ ও ৪৫ ধারায় শান্তিপূর্ণ বিরোধ নিষ্পত্তির বিধান রাখা হয়েছে। আইনের এই বিধানের অধীন দায়িক ও ডিক্রি ধারক ব্যাংক মামলার শুরুতে এমনকি ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নের সময়ও নিজেরা বিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি করতে পারত। বন্ধকী সম্পত্তি মুক্ত হয়েছে এবং দায়িক ও ডিক্রি ধারকের মধ্যে শান্তিপূর্ণভাবে বিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি হওয়ায় ডিক্রি বাস্তবায়নের মামলা প্রত্যাহারের ফলে নিলাম ক্রেতা কোনো প্রতিকার পাওয়ার যোগ্য না। .....M. A. Hashem son of late Addul Aziz -Vs.- The Artha Rin Adalat No. 2, Dhaka and others (Spl.Original) 19 ALR (HCD) 225-236

Sections 38 & 44 — জারী পর্যায় নিলাম রদের জন্য দাখিলী বিবিধ মামলাসমূহের চূড়ান্ত আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে বিবিধ আপীল রক্ষণীয় এবং অর্থ ঋণ মোকদ্দমা হতে উদ্ভূত জারী মোকদ্দমার সকল অন্তবর্তীকালীন আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে আপীল বা রিভিশন গ্রহণযোগ্য নয়। তবে উক্ত ক্ষেত্রে রীট রক্ষণীয়।
অর্থ ঋণ আদালত আইনের ১৯ ধারা এবং ৪২ ধারা তথা জারী পর্যায় নিলাম রদের জন্য দাখিলী বিবিধ মামলাসমূহের চূড়ান্ত আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে বিবিধ আপীল রক্ষণীয় এবং অর্থ ঋণ মোকদ্দমা হতে উদ্ভূত জারী মোকদ্দমার সকল অন্তবর্তীকালীন আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে আপীল বা রিভিশন গ্রহণযোগ্য নয়। তবে উক্ত ক্ষেত্রে রীট রক্ষণীয়। উপরি-উক্ত আলোচনা হতে প্রতীয়মান হয় যে, অর্থ ঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ এর ৪১ এবং ৪৪ ধারার বিধানাবলী একটি অন্যটির সহিত সাংঘর্ষিক নয় বরং দুইটি বিধানের যথার্থ কার্যকারিতা রয়েছে। স্বীকৃত মতে, অর্থ জারী আদালতের ৬৪ নং আদেশ বা অন্যকোনো আদেশ চ্যালেঞ্জ করে বাদী ব্যাংক কোনো রীট মামলা দায়ের করেননি। বাদী ব্যাংক ইচ্ছা করলে উক্ত আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে রীট মামলা দায়ের করতে পারতেন। কিন্তু উক্ত আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে রীট না করে মিস আপীল নং ০১/২০১৩ (অর্থ) দায়ের করেন। জেলা জজ, বগুড়া এর উক্ত আপীল গ্রহণের কোনো আইনগত ক্ষমতা না থাকা সত্তে¡ও তিনি উক্ত আপীল গ্রহণ করে নিষ্পত্তির জন্য অতিরিক্ত জেলা জজ, ২য় আদালত বগুড়ায় পাঠিয়েছেন। অতিরিক্ত জেলা জজ, ২য় আদালতের উচিৎ ছিল উক্ত মামলাটি Maintainable নয় মর্মে সিদ্ধান্ত প্রদানপূর্বক আপীলটি খারিজ করা। এখতিয়ার না থাকা সত্ত্বেও বিজ্ঞ অতিরিক্ত জেলা জজ মামলার গুণাগুণ বিবেচনা করে সিদ্ধান্ত প্রদান করেছেন। যা দৃশ্যত বেআইনী। .....মোঃ আব্দুল মান্নান রউফ -বনাম- বাংলাদেশ সরকার গং (Spl.Original) 19 ALR (HCD) 268-274

It appears that none of the aforesaid provisions are applicable to a sale of property directed to be sold in execution of a decree for sale in enforcement of a mortgage of or charge on such property. The reason for this being that in the case of a mortgage decree the right of sale does not depend upon attachment in execution but is conferred by the decree itself and that whether the decree contained a specified provision as to the selling of the property. The executing court has no discretion in this matter. …..Sonali BankLtd. -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, No.-1. 5 ALR (HCD)2015(1) 204

It appears to the High Court Division that provisions of Or 21 rule 83 of the CPC and sec.38 of the Ain,2003 are not applicable to a sale of property directed to be sold in execution of a decree for sale in enforcement of a mortgage of or charge on such property. The reason for this being that in the case of a mortgage decree the right of sale does not depend upon attachment in execution but is conferred by the decree itself and that whether the decree contained a specified provision as to the selling of the property. The executing court has no discretion in this matter and as such the order passed by the executing Court giving provision to the judgment-debtor to sell the mortgage property is palpably illegal and contrary to the provision of law. …..Sonali Bank Ltd -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, No1. 5 ALR (HCD)2015(1) 381

The Artha Ritn Adalat being a creature of the statute (Act IV of 1990 and the Act (VIII of 2003) it cannot go beyond it nor can it be regulated by other notification which is not, at all, related with the adjudication of the suit
The High Court Division observed that by and large the Court is to assume the role of sole expositor of parliamentary enactments. Judges are not legislators; their creative power is very much limited by existing legal material and to proceed at their commands. It would be nothing less than corrupt use of power if the court or any other authority goes on ignoring the provision of enacted laws in order to show an unregulated benevolence to any admitted defaulter on the basis of a recommendation of the committee, formulated by the Government overshadowing the provision of the enacted laws. It is to be borne in mind that express intention of the legislatures through statute can only guide the court and procedure, laid down therein can only regulate it's proceeding but none- else. …..Sonali Bank Limited, Head Office Motijheel Commercial Area, represented by its Manager, Sonali Bank Limited, Laldigi Corporate Branch, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Chittagong. -Vs.- Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Shahbagh, Dhaka. (Spl. Original) 9 ALR (HCD) 14-18

The Adalat almost in every case is reluctant to extend its hands to help the litigants taking recourse to the sections of the Ain making them virtually ineffective. .....AB Mannaf Sheikh (Md) vs 1st Joint District Judge Court and Artha Rin Adalat, 19 BLC 493.

Amicable Settlement—The Bank and the Judgment— debtors are at liberty settle the matter, excluding the auction sold property, if they are willing to do so in terms of the Guidelines for the balance decretal amount due to the Bank from the Judgment-debtor-petitioner and others as amicable settlement is permissible at any stage during the execution case by the parties under the Ain. .....ABC Attire Lid vs. Bangladesh, 64 DLR 399.

The question of third party claim is a question of facts and requires evidence and enquiry by the Court. The petitioner either can settle the dispute amicably out of Court under section 38 and 45 of the Ain or can take recourse to the relevant provisions of law contained in the Ain by filing an appropriate application before the Adalat, if so advised. .....Khadiza Begum vs Shahjalal Islami Bank Ltd, 67 DLR 583.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

No writ is maintainable against a decree or post-decree order passed by Artharin Adalats:
It is the clear intention of the Legislature that a party to an Artharin Suit if aggrieved by a decree, must prefer an appeal. Since the Ain, 2003 is a special law with an overriding provision over other laws and has prescribed a special procedure, there is no scope to bypass the appellate forum, if the forum under Section 19(2) of the Ain, 2003 against an exparte decree is already not availed of by the party. ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140

Section 41— অর্থঋণ আদালতের ডিক্রি বা আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে রীট গ্রহণযোগ্য না। আইনসভার উদ্দেশ্যে হতে এটা স্পষ্ট যে, অর্থঋণের মামলায় যেকোনো পক্ষ সংক্ষুব্ধ হলে আপীল করতে পারবে। অর্থঋণ আদালত আইন, ২০০৩ একটি বিশেষ আইন এবং অন্য আইনের বিধানের উপর প্রাধান্য বিদ্যমান এবং যদি মামলার কোনো পক্ষ একতরফা ডিক্রির বিরুদ্ধে আইনের ১৯(২) ধারার বিধানের অধীন বর্ণিত আদালতে প্রতিকার প্রার্থনা না করে তাহলে আইনে বিশেষ পদ্ধতি নির্ধারণ করায় আপীল আদালতকে অগ্রাহ্য করার সুযোগ নেই। ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140 ....View Full Judgment

Writ is maintainable against a pre-decree order passed by Artharin Adalat. The only exception is that before passing the decree, if a party to an Artharin Suit feels aggrieved by an order, writ jurisdiction may be invoked as has been held in the case Sonali Bank Ltd Vs Asha Tex International 20 BLC 185. However, after passing a decree, if the party of an Artharin Suit, becomes aggrieved by any type of order, there is no forum other than preferring an appeal under Section 41 of the Ain, 2003. ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140 ....View Full Judgment

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

Section 41— অর্থ ঋণ আদালতের বিজ্ঞ বিচারক আদালতে ব্যাংককে দায়িকের দাখিলী দলিলাদি উপস্থাপন করার জন্য নির্দেশ প্রদান করলেও ব্যাংকের সংশ্লিষ্ট আইনজীবী আদালত কে জানান যে ব্যাংক সংশ্লিষ্ট দলিলাদি আদালতে দাখিল করবে না। যা ধৃষ্টতাপূর্ণ এবং অপ্রত্যাশিত।
নথি পর্যালোচনায় দেখা যায় যে, দায়িক ইষ্টার্ণ ব্যাংক বাংলাদেশ লিমিটেড এর বগুড়া শাখা থেকে ব্যবসায়ের উদ্দেশ্যে ২০ (বিশ) লক্ষ টাকা ঋণ গ্রহণ করেন। ঋণ প্রদানে ব্যর্থতায় বাদী ব্যাংক অর্থ ঋণ আদালতে মামলা দায়ের করেন। উক্ত মামলা দায়ের করার আগে বাদী ব্যাংকে ১০ (দশ) লক্ষ টাকা জমা দেন। অর্থ ঋণ মোকদ্দমায় ডিক্রী হয় ২২,৩৪,৩২৪.০২ টাকা ডিক্রী হয়। অতঃপর দায়িক মামলা চলাকালীন এবং মামলার রায়ের পরে বিভিন্ন তারিখে সর্বমোট ২৮,৬৭,৫৯৯.৩৭ টাকা ব্যাংকে জমা প্রদান করেন অর্থাৎ দায়িক ঋণগ্রহীতা সর্বমোট (১০,০০,০০০.০০+২৮,৬৭,৫৯৯.৩৭)= ৩৮,৬৭,৫৯৯.৩৭ টাকা প্রদান করেছেন। অর্থ ঋণ আদালতের বিজ্ঞ বিচারক আদালতে ব্যাংককে দায়িকের দাখিলী দলিলাদি উপস্থাপন করার জন্য নির্দেশ প্রদান করলেও ব্যাংকের সংশ্লিষ্ট আইনজীবী আদালত কে জানান যে ব্যাংক সংশ্লিষ্ট দলিলাদি আদালতে দাখিল করবে না। যা ধৃষ্টতাপূর্ণ এবং অপ্রত্যাশিত। ব্যাংক কর্মকর্তাদের মনে রাখতে হবে “They are bound by law, subordinate to law and answerable to law who are they may be.” আদালতের উক্ত আদেশ দ্বারা ডিক্রী জারী মামলাটি চূড়ান্তভাবে নিষ্পত্তি হয়নি। বরং ইহা একটি অন্তবর্তীকালীন আদেশ। উক্ত জারী মামলাটি চূড়ান্ত নিষ্পত্তিকালে বাদী ব্যাংকের কোনো দাবী থাকলে তা উপস্থাপন করতে পারতো। এখানে উল্লেখযোগ্য যে, বাদী ব্যাংক wrong forum এ আপীল করার ফলে এ রীট মামলার উদ্ভব ঘটে। উপরি-উক্ত আলোচনা ও উক্ত মামলার ঘটনা, অবস্থা ও প্রেক্ষাপট পর্যালোচনা করলে আদালতের কাছে প্রতীয়মান হয় যে, অর্থ জারী মামলায় প্রদত্ত আদেশটি অন্তবর্তীকালীন আদেশ। উক্ত আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে আপীল মামলাটি ৪১ ধারা অনুযায়ী গ্রহণযোগ্য নয় এবং তর্কিত মিস আপীল মামলার রায় ও আদেশ আইনত রক্ষণীয় নয়। সংগত কারণে বলা যায় যে, উক্ত রুলের সারবত্তা রয়েছে। ফলে রুলটি চূড়ান্তকরণ যোগ্য। অতএব, আদেশ হয় যে, উক্ত রুলটি চূড়ান্ত তথা absolute করা হলো। .....মোঃ আব্দুল মান্নান রউফ -বনাম- বাংলাদেশ সরকার গং (Spl.Original) 19 ALR (HCD) 268-274

Section 41— অর্থ জারী মামলায় প্রদত্ত আদেশটি অন্তবর্তীকালীন আদেশ। উক্ত আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে আপীল মামলাটি ৪১ ধারা অনুযায়ী গ্রহণযোগ্য নয় এবং তর্কিত মিস আপীল মামলার রায় ও আদেশ আইনগত রক্ষণীয় নয়। .....Abdul Mannan Rauf (Md) vs Bangladesh (Spl Original), 73 DLR 237

In view of the well settled principle of law as to the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition, there is no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has miserably failed to cross the first hurdle, inasmuch as Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 is a special law and special provision having been provided in Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 for preferring appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat. In order to save the valuable public time since the petitioner could not cross the first hurdle, it is not necessary to consider the other grounds of the writ petition. .....Edruk Ltd vs Secretary Ministry of Industries. 14 BLC 102.

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.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is to deposit 50% of the decretal amount in order to prefer an appeal under section 41 of the Ain and therefore, the appeal is not an equally efficacious remedy for the petitioners and so, that writ petition is maintainable. Moreover, the suit having been filed under the Ain and the Ain being a special law the provision of the Ain shall be applicable in the instant case. .....United Food Complex Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat, 15 BLC 489.

The sole question to be investigated is one of possession. And next, if possession is found of the respondents whether they possessed independently or through judgment debtor. Learned Judge without any investigation passed the order holding that the applicant's respondents ascertained in the application that their property was wrongly included in the auction notice. .....Rupali Bank Ltd vs Sheuli Akter Moni, 17 BLC 476.

We are of the view that the petitioner bank may file any appeal without depositing any money but within 30 (thirty) days as prescribed and admittedly the appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed period of 30 (thirty) days, the Artha rin Adalat Ain, 2003 being special law and the limitation for preferring appeal having been provided by the special law, the provisions of Limitation Act, is not available. .....Rupali Bank Lid vs Md. Hamayer Uddin, 17 BLT 60.

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.

Artha Rin Adalat can only be constituted by Joint District Judge alone. If due to illness or for any other reason or the court is in vacation the Adalat cannot function with its regular work the District Judge will appoint temporarily a Joint District Judge to continue function of Artha Rin Adalat. For the purpose of functioning of Adalat to be more particular to hold the trial jurisdiction lies with the Joint District Judge. Section 11 of Ain clearly says that the District Judge and the Additional District Judge are the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Joint District Judge in the capacity of Artha Rin Adalat Judge. .....Sheikh Md Rafiqul Islam (Babul) vs Manager, Uttara Bank Limited. 66 DLR 131.

Any order passed by that Court arising out of special law i.e. Artha Rin Adalat Ain would be regularize within the purview of the special law not by general law. .....Sheikh Fariduddin (Md) vs Sonali Bank, Barisal (Civil) 71 DLR 25

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.

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.

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.

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

As there is a mandatory provision to deposit 50% of the decreetal amount to prefer appeal, the appeal is not at all maintainable and in fact there is no appeal in the eye of law. In the absence of 50% of the decreetal amount deposit to prefer appeal there is no existence of appeal in the eye of law. On perusal of section 41 of the Ain, 2003 it appears that appeal would lie to the High Court Division against any order or decree passed by Artha Rin Adalat within 60 days subject to fulfillment of condition mentioned therein, that is deposit of 50% of the decreetal amount and submit with the memorandum of appeal the proof of such deposit and it has further been provided that in the absence of submitting such proof with memorandum of appeal no appeal filed under sub-section (1) of section 41 shall be accepted for any action. .....Shamsul Alam (Md) vs Md Liyakat Ullah (Civil), 72 DLR 17

Due to non-fulfilment of the mandatory requirement of sub-section (2) of section 41 of the Ain no valid appeal is pending before this Court and, as such, the application filed for dismissing the appeal on the ground of maintainability has got substance for which the appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable in law. .....Sonali Food Products (Pvt) Ltd vs Premier Bank Ltd. 17 BLC 441.

It appears that the legislature has set down the condition in section 41(2) of the Ain that 50% of the decretal dues at the time of preferring appeal or at the time of filing an application must be deposited which is a precondition for preferring an appeal. Such precondition being imposed by the Parliament, who has the power to take away any vested right by clear and unambiguous language, the same cannot be said to have taken away the right to protection of law. .....Anisur Rahman @ KM Ziaul Haque vs Government of Bangladesh, 12 BLC 22.

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.

On perusal of the said Ain it appears that the legislature has set down the condition in section 41(2) of the Ain that 50% of the decreetal dues at the time of preferring of appeal or at the time of filing of an application must be deposited which is a precondition being imposed by the parliament, which has the power to take away any vested right by clear and unambiguous language, the same cannot be said to have taken away the right to protection of law. For the reasons and discussion made hereinabove and considering the decisions as cited above, we are of the view that the provision of section 41 (2) of the Ain or any part of the same is not violative of Articles 27,31. 40 or 42 of the Constitution, .....Anisur Rahman @ KM Ziaul Haque vs Government, 12 MLR 75 = 11 BLC 22.

While an appeal may be preferred against those orders which are passed only after drawing the decree, the orders passed by the Adalat at pre-decree stage, which have been defined as interlocutory orders, can also be taken into consideration by the appellate court in course of dealing with the appeal matter preferred against the decree itself or the post-decree order. .....Sonali Bank Limited vs Asha Tex International, 20 BLC 185.

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

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

Rule of revisional application was discharged on 06.12.2017 for default for non appearance and thereafter on next day i.e. 07.12.2017 by an application sought for restoration of the said rule
Held; In view of a decision reported in 41 DLR(AD)-105 we have set about our mind to hear the matter on merit if any application for restoration is filed and it is found that if the application for restoration is allowed it would be futal exercise as in the original case, revision or appeal there is no merit. In such situation litigant will continue the unnecessary litigation of which an ultimate result of the litigation is as clear as daylight. In the instant application for restoration we have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner on merit in respect of Rule as well as application for restoration. - while the Court is designated by a special law to act upon such special law in aid of procedural law, in other words, in aid of the Code of Civil Procedure the status of the Court would not be changed due to the application of general law. Here, the decree passed by as the Court itself was a Artha Rin Court and at the same time the very subject also arose from Artha Rin matter, so any order passed by that Court arising out of special law i.e. Artha Rin Adalat Ain would be regularize within the purview of the special law not by general law. .....Md. Sheikh Fariduddin Vs. Sonali Bank, Barishal & Ors 27BLT(HCD)372

If a party to an Artharin suit is aggrieved by an order or decree of the Ada¬lat, s/he is required to prefer an appeal subject to fulfillment of the conditions with regard to depositing money and time-limitation. Faizun Nabi Chowdhury -Vs.- The Judge Artharin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka and others. (Spl. Original) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 115 ....View Full Judgment

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

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

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

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

There is a total bar in filing any revision against any interlocutory order passed by the Artha Rin Adalat. All the decisions of the Appellate Division and this Division clearly focused on the said proposition of law. The revisions which are filed against interlocutory order of the Adalat are not accepted by now. .....Mahbubur Rahman vs District Judge, Bogra, 17 BLC 601.

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.

Court is not empowered or authorized to waive interest charged on the amount under claim as per agreement executed between the judgment debtor and the financial institution i.e. the plaintiff-Bank till its realization. The contemplation of the aforesaid provision of law is clear and unambiguous that the Court cannot waive such interest and it is the Bank itself who could waive such interest to whom the defendant could approach for waiving the interest. Section 30 of the Bank Companies Act, 1991 has also imposed similar embargo upon the Court's jurisdiction to interfere with the interest so payable by the borrower to the Bank under agreement, although the Court had authority to grant installment to the decretal amount subject to some limitations. .....Janata Bank vs Mohiuddin Textile 62 DLR 501.

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

Section 44—Under section 44 of the Ain interlocutory orders passed by the Artha Rin Adalat cannot be challenged in appellate and revisional jurisdiction and so, writ petitions are maintainable against interlocutory orders passed by the Artha Rin Adalat. .....Trade Multi Plex vs Artha Rin Adalat 62 DLR 533.

Section 44— ৪৪ ধারার বিধান অনুসারে অন্তবর্তীকালীন আদেশ আপীল বা রিভিশন আদালতে চ্যালেঞ্জ যাবে না। তবে অর্থঋণ আদালতের অন্তবর্তীকালীন আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে সংক্ষুদ্ধ ব্যক্তি হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের রীট এখতিয়ারের প্রতিকার খুঁজতে পারবে। .....Trade Multi Plex vs Artha Rin Adalat 62 DLR 533.

Section 44— Since the Ain is a special law with, an overriding provision over other laws and has prescribed a special procedure, there is no scope to bypass the provision of section 44 of the Ain. .....Hasan Traders vs Janata Bank Ltd. (Civil) 76 DLR 153
Section 44— The time as mentioned in section 10 of the Ain is a directory in nature. Since the impugned order is not a final order, the petitioner neither could prefer a civil revision nor an appeal. The petitioner has no other remedy other than filing a writ petition. .....Hasan Traders vs Janata Bank Ltd. (Civil) 76 DLR 153

Legislature has mandated the Adalats to take the matters, which fall within the mischief of the interlocutory orders, into consideration when they deal with an appeal filed by any party to the suit against the decree or any post-decree order. .....Sonali Bank Limited vs Asha Tex International, 20 BLC 185.

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.

How the Bank can execute the deed of redemption in favour of the mortgagor when the auction sale has not yet been set-aside. Execution of deed of redemption on 29-3-2015 is absolutely a nullity and void ab initio. Because long before the execution of deed of redemption, the property was sold to the auction-purchasers making the sale absolute and there was no interference at that moment by the higher Court. After auction sale of mortgaged property, leaving the auction purchaser the Bank cannot make any compromise under section 45 of the Act, 2003. .....Enayet Hossain vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 29 BLC 74.

Section 46— The provisions of section 46(1) or those of section 46(3) with regard to the filing of a suit are clothed in a positive command following a negative condition. If the negative condition exists, the positive command is to be obeyed. Thus, the negative condition and the positive command are strong indication of the intent of the Legislature to make the provision mandatory.
Whether a provision is mandatory or directory it is required to look into the real intention of the Legislature upon considering the whole scope of the statute. The High Court Division held that the Legislature has made the provisions of section 46(1) applicable subject to the provisions of section 46(2). From a joint reading of sections 46(1) and 46(2) it appears that the filing of a suit under section 46(1) is subject to the rescheduling of the loan under section 46(2) within the prescribed period of limitation i.e. if the loan is rescheduled, no suit can be filed within the prescribed period. In the other words, if the loan is not rescheduled, the suit must have to be filed within the period prescribed in section 46(1) and not after that period. Similarly, the provisions of section 46(3) being subject to the provisions of section 46(4), if the loan is not rescheduled, the suit must be filed within the period prescribed in section 46(3). Since the filing of any suit under the Ain depends on the circumstances as to non-realisation of the stipulated amount of loan and non-rescheduling of the loan within the prescribed period, if the circumstances exist the concerned financial institution is legally bound to file the suit within the prescribed period in accurately obeying the circumstances, which contemplates implied nullification for disobedience thereto. .....Kazi Mohammad Mofizur Rahman -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and others (Spl. Original) 15 ALR (HCD) 243-257

Section 46— নেতিবাচক অবস্থার প্রেক্ষিতে, মামলা দায়ের সম্পর্কে ৪৬(১) বা ৪৬(৩) ধারার বিধানসমূহ ইতিবাচক নির্দেশনা দ্বারা আবৃত। নেতিবাচক অবস্থা বিদ্যমান থাকলে ইতিবাচক নির্দেশ অনুসরণ করতে হয়। ফলে নেতিবাচক অবস্থা ও ইতিবাচক নির্দেশের বিধান বাস্তবায়নে আইনসভার অভিপ্রায়ের শক্ত ইঙ্গিত বহন করে। কোনো বিধান বাধ্যতামূলক বা নির্দেশনামূলক কি না বুঝতে হলে সম্পূর্ণ আইনের সুযোগ বিবেচনায় নিয়ে আইনসভার প্রকৃত উদ্দেশ্যের তদন্ত করা প্রয়োজন। হাইকোর্ট মনে করে, আইনসভা ৪৬(১) ধারার বিধানসমূহকে ৪৬(২) ধারার বিধান সাপেক্ষে প্রয়োগযোগ্য করেছে। ৪৬(১) ও ৪৬(২) হতে প্রতীয়মান হয় মামলা দায়েরের বিষয়টি ৪৬(১) ধারার অধীন নির্ধারিত সময়ের মধ্যে ৪৬(২) ধারার অধীন ঋণ পুনঃনবায়ন সাপেক্ষে কার্যকর হবে। ঋণ পুনঃনবায়ন হলে নির্ধারিত সময়ের মধ্যে কোনো মামলা দায়ের করা যাবে না। আবার ঋণ পুনঃনবায়ন না হলে ৪৬(১) ধারার বিধান অনুসারে নির্ধারিত সময়ের মধ্যে অবশ্যই মামলা দায়ের করতে হবে। একইভাবে ৪৬(৩) ধারার বিধান ৪৬(৪) বিধান সাপেক্ষে কার্যকর হবে। ঋণ পুনঃনবায়ন করা না হলে ৪৬(৩) ধারার নির্ধারিত সময়ের মধ্যে অবশ্যই মামলা দায়ের করতে হবে। ঋণের অর্থ অনাদায় ও নির্ধারিত সময়ের মধ্যে পুনঃনবায়ন না হওয়ার পরিস্থিতিতে এই আইনের অধীন মামলা দায়ের করতে হবে। এইরূপ পরিস্থিতি বিদ্যমান থাকলে সংশ্লিষ্ট আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠান পরিস্থিতি অনুসরণপূর্বক নির্ধারিত সময়ের মধ্যে মামলা দায়ের করতে বাধ্য। অন্যথায় নিরবে মামলা দায়েরের অধিকার হারাবে। .....Kazi Mohammad Mofizur Rahman -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and others (Spl. Original) 15 ALR (HCD) 243-257

Section 46 (5)—The High Court Division further held that the provision of section 46 (5) does not diminish the force of the other provisions of section 46 of the Ain. Accordingly, the filing of the suit within the period of limitation prescribed under section 46(1) or section 46(3), as the case may be, is mandatory, which also contemplates implied nullification for disobeying the same provisions. .....Kazi Mohammad Mofizur Rahman -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and others (Spl. Original) 15 ALR (HCD) 243-257

Section 46 (5)—হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের মতে ৪৬(৫) ধারার বিধান ৪৬ ধারার শক্তিকে খর্ব করে না। ৪৬(১) বা ৪৬(৩) ধারার বিধানের অধীন নির্ধারিত সময়ের মধ্যে মামলা দায়ের বাধ্যতামূলক। অন্যথায় নিরবে মামলা দায়েরের অধিকার হারায়। .....Kazi Mohammad Mofizur Rahman -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and others (Spl. Original) 15 ALR (HCD) 243-257

(Comparative discussion)— The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 being a special law the provisions of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 and by virtue thereof, the provisions of section 3 of the same Act are applicable to the suits under the said Ain of 2003.
The High Court Division held that like the overriding clause of section 3 of the Family Courts Ordinance, 1985 the overriding clause of section 3 of the Aritha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 also means that if there are provisions in the Ain which are different from or are in conflict with the provisions of any other law, then the provisions of the said Ain will prevail over the provisions of other laws. By virtue of the non-obstante clause of section 46(1) of the Ain ‘The Limitation Act, 1908 (Act No. IX of 1908) এ ভিন্নতর বিধান যাহাই থাকুক না কেন’ only the periods of limitation prescribed therein shall prevail over the periods of limitation prescribed in the Limitation Act and thereby the application of section 29(2) or section 3 of the Limitation Act to the suits under the Ain has not been debarred. .....Kazi Mohammad Mofizur Rahman -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and others (Spl. Original) 15 ALR (HCD) 243-257.

Since not even a single farthing of the alleged loan money was ever realised nor was it rescheduled, the respondent bank was to file its suit within one year from the date of coming into force of the provision of section 46 of the Ain i.e. within 30.04.2005. But the suit was filed on 25.07.2010 and as such, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and as per the provisions of section 46(1)(Ka) of the Ain read with the provisions of sections 29(2) and 3 of the Limitation Act is also liable to be dismissed. .....Kazi Mohammad Mofizur Rahman -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and others (Spl. Original) 15 ALR (HCD) 243-257

It appears that the provision of Section 46 of the Ain, 2003 so far it relates to the question of filing the suit by the bank or financial institution against the borrower within specified time is directory and not at all mandatory and therefore, in any view of the matter, the suit is not barred by limitation. Thus, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the learned Judge of Artha Rin Adalat No. 1 Dhaka. Hence, the rule fails. .....Shahabuddin Khan vs Bangladesh, 14 BLC 111.

Sub-section 5 of section 46 is that a power has been given to Adalat to take action against the bank if the case has not been filed in terms of section 46 of Ain. Therefore, it cannot be said that section 46 in its entirety connotes a mandatory implication. This is only a directory one. Analogy of section 28 of Ain does not fit in section 46 of the Ain. .....Shitalakhaya Ice and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat, 64 DLR 487.

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.

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.

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

The provisions of section 47 of the Ain, 2003 came into force on 1-5-2004 and the suit was filed on 27-1-2003 i.e. before the Ain, 2003 and the provisions of section 47 came intoforce. Therefore, section 47 has no manner of application in the suit. .....Humayun Hossain Khan vs Bangladesh, 61 DLR 513.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 47 of the Ain the executing court reduced the claim of the decree holder bank from Tk.2,00,86,324.68 to Tk. 71,52,176.00 and allowed the judgment- debtors one year time to repay the outstanding amount to the decree holder by 4 instalments exercising power under Section 49 of the Ain. It is to be mentioned that the instant suit was filed on 05.01.2002 under the provisions of Artha Rin Ain 1990 and the suit was decreed on 02.11.2003. Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 came into force on 01.05.2003 and Section 47 of the Ain was given effect from 01.05.2004 as mentioned in Section 47(3) and as such the provisions of Section 47 are not applicable in the present case. …..Sonali Bank Ltd. -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, No.-1 . 5 ALR (HCD)2015(1) 204

The executing court reduced the claim of the decree holder bank from Tk.2,00,86,324.68 to Tk. 71,52,176.00 and allowed the judgment- debtors one year time to repay the outstanding amount to the decree holder by 4 instalments exercising power under Section 49 of the Ain. It is to be mentioned that the instant suit was filed on 05.01.2002 under the provisions of Artha Rin Ain 1990 and the suit was decreed on 02.11.2003. Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 came into force on 01.05.2003 and Section 47 of the Ain was given effect from 01.05.2004 as mentioned in Section 47(3) and as such the provisions of Section 47 are not applicable in the present case. …..Sonali Bank Ltd -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, No1. 5 ALR (HCD)2015(1) 381

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

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

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

Challenging the proceeding of the Artha Rin Suit—
Due to deposit of part court fees on the day of presenting plaint, the suit shall not fail. But it shall be deemed to have been filed and registered on that very day of depositing balance court fees.
The High Court Division held that in this case there is no question about the limitation or applicability of section 47 of the Act, 2003 or any other issue to be raised before depositing the entire Court fees. Rather, the Adalat started process having the full payment of Court fees. Therefore, the High Court Division does not find any illegality in continuing with the suit and as such, the Rule fails. In the result, the Rule is discharged. .....M/s Nobel Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. -Vs.- Bangladesh and others. (Spl. Original) 29 ALR (HCD) 91

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.

Keeping consistency with the section 50(2) of the Ain, this Court inclined to award simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount from the date of filing the suit till realization subject to maximum payable under section 47 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain. The simple interest payable shall not exceed 200% of the original claim. .....Pubali Bank Ltd vs Amin Iqbal Corporation, 17 BLC 500.

The claim of Taka 5,09,340.50 becomes very high against the small loan amount of Taka 40,000 and it will create hardship to refund. So the amount of claim may be reduced according to section 47 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, which allows the Bank to set up claim of only the loan amount by adding not more than double the principle amount as interest irrespective of the contract. .....Pubali Bank Ltd vs Farzana Begum, 15 BLC 49.

The legislature imposed restriction on the claim to the tune that a financial institution in no way can demand any interest more than 200%. .....Sonali Bank vs Md Lutfor Rahman, 21 BLC 198.

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.

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

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.

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.

The provisions of section 47 of the Ain, 2003 came into force on 1-5-2004 and the suit was filed on 27-1-2003 i.e. before the Ain, 2003 and the provisions of section 47 came into force. Therefore, section 47 has no manner of application in the suit. .....Humayun Hossain Khan vs. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, 61 DLR 513.

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.

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.

Section 48—Provision of section 48 of the Ain is limited only to take the time for disposal of the cases having no connection whatsoever with the period prescribed for filing an appeal, not of making deposit as required under section 41 of the Ain. .....Abdul Monayem Lili vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 67 DLR 358.

Section 48— আইনের ৪৮ ধারা বিধান শুধুমাত্র মামলা নিষ্পত্তির সময়ের সঙ্গে সম্পর্কিত এবং নির্ধারিত সময়ের মধ্যে আপীল দায়ের ও ৪১ ধারায় অর্থ জমার বিষয়ের সঙ্গে কোনো সম্পর্ক নেই। .....Abdul Monayem Lili vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 67 DLR 358.

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.

The language employed in Section 48 of the Ain, 2003, ‘for computation of the days under this law’ (এই আইনের অধীন দিবস গণনার ক্ষেত্রে) and thereby generalising the method of counting the time-frame with reference to the judges’ working days does not fit in the functional aspect of the trial of a case which requires compliance by others also e.g. process server, nazarate, parties etc. Salahuddin and others -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others. (Spl. Original) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 131 ....View Full Judgment

Writ Petitioner due to acute financial constraint could not pay the decretal amount in time, but he is very much eager to pay back the outstanding dues of the plaintiff-bank and that considering the financial crisis of the petitioner he, on humanitarian ground, may be given another chance to pay the decretal amount in 4 installments within one year time as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Held: we are inclined to give another chance to the petitioner to pay the decretal amount in installments. .....Shiekh Shahidul Islam vs Joint District Judge, 15 BLT 326.

We are inclined to give another chance to the petitioner to pay the decretal amount in installments. .....Sk. Shahidul Islam vs Joint District Judge, 15 BLT 326.

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

Four Installment within one year
In the instant case the Adalat passed an order to make payment on four installments within one year, which means payment may he made on four installments within one year. It may be within one month, two months, six months or any month during the duration of one year. Even petitioner may make payment of 4(four) installment at a time within last day of one year. Md. Shamsul Alam Talukder Vs Bangladesh & Ors 16BLT(HCD)440

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.

The executing Court cannot pass any order for auction sale of any land not shown in the schedule of the Execution Case.
The High Court Division held that it is crystal clear that the land of commissioner’s report submitted after local investigation has no conformity with the mortgaged land shown in the schedule of the plaint and the execution case. Mortgaged land shown in the auction sale notice published in the local news paper is also seen to be consistent with the mortgaged land embodied in the 2nd schedule land of the plaint and the same mortgaged land has also been figured in the schedule of the instant execution case. So the executing Court cannot pass any order for auction sale of any land not shown in the schedule of the Execution Case. Accordingly this Rule is absolute. …..Md. Aminul Islam -Vs.- Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation. (Civil) 9 ALR (HCD) 140-143

The Adalat has no jurisdiction to waive or remit any interest from the date of taking loan till the date of filing of the suit and recovery of loan.
The High Court Division held that the Adalat without following the said provision of law passed the impugned judgment and decree and thereby committed an error of law. Thereafter, the Adalat took up issue Nos. 1 to 4 together for decision and decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. The other issue Nos. 2 to 4 relating to claim of the plain-tiff as prayed for has been decided by the Adalat in favour of the plaintiff in-part, which to be decided by the Adalat in strict compliance with the provision of section 50 of the Ain, 2003 subject to the provision of section 47 of the said Ain. The 1st part of issue No. 6 with regard to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24.10.2004 absolutely relates to the merit of the case while the 2nd part of the issue relating to ‘are the defendants entitled to get any relief under section 57 of the Ain, 2003 does not arise in any manner where the plaintiff sought relief under the specific provision of the Ain, 2003. The Adalat struck out from the plaint the name of defendant-respondent No. 4, who was a director of defendant No. 1-Company, holding that his resignation from the directorship of the company had been accepted by the Board of Directors of the company and he has transferred all his shares of the company to its other directors but it has not been reflected in the impugned judgment and decree whether his resignation has been accepted and his guarantee, etc. has been released by the Board of Directors of the Bank as required under section 27Ka of the Act, 1991. This question needs to be addressed on taking evidence. In the light of the above discussions and findings, the High Court Division is of the view that the impugned judgment and decree of the Adalat suffers from legal infirmities and illegalities, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In that view of the matter justice will better be served if the appeal is sent back on remand to the Adalat concerned by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree for fresh trial/ hearing giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and if necessary to adduce further evidence in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Striking out the name of respondent No. 4 from the plaint of the suit by order No. 45 dated 31.08.2010 as well as the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.08.2010 passed by the learned Judge of the Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong in Artha Rin Suit No. 95 of 2007 is set aside and the suit is sent back on remand to the Adalat concerned for fresh trial/ hearing. .....Agrani Bank Limited -Vs.- M/S. Vanguard Steels Limited (Civil) 18 ALR (HCD) 294-299

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

Imposition of interest cannot be reduced or waived by the Court of law in any manner. The Court is to accept the rate of interest and other issues fixed by the financial institution. .....Sonali Bank vs Md Lutfor Rahman, 21 BLC 198.

Section 50(3) of the Ain of 2003 gives the authority on appellate Court to waive the interest, during the period of pendency of the suit and appeal if it thinks just and proper. Because of fault and arbitrariness, the plaintiff bank suffered loss, if any, the defendants cannot be made liable for such loss. In view of such facts the plaintiff bank is not entitled to get interest during the pendency of the suit and appeal that is pendente lite interest. .....Janata Bank vs Betka Poultry and Dairy Complex, 16 BLC 665.

The legislature has given clear mandate enabling the Bank to claim interest forming part of the principal amount as per the agreed contract of loan. The court has exercised his inherent power, though this court has no jurisdiction to do so or entrusted any power to waive any interest accrued. There is a specific provision to recover the default loan and interest. The court has to follow the procedure laid down therein; it cannot overlook the provision laid down there. .....AB Bank Limited vs Khan Enterprise (Civil) 23 BLC 657

Banking (Moazzal system of transaction)—Moazzal system of transaction is a simple transaction whereby the bank on credit sells certain properties to customer on a fixed profit and the purchaser is required to repay a fixed amount agreed within the stipulated time. .....Islamic Bank Ltd. vs Sohag Medicine, 2001 BLD 1 = 52 DLR 571.

The Adalat has no jurisdiction to waive or remit any interest from the date of taking loan till the date of filing of the suit and recovery of loan. .....Agrani Bank Limited vs Vanguard Steels Limited (Civil), 73 DLR 580

Non-recording of any direction regarding payment of interest from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decretal amount in the judgment and decree by the Adalat does not to the affect give the right of the decree holder for charging the payment of interest as provided under section 50 of the Ain. .....Abdul Mannan @Rouf vs Bangladesh, 17 BLC 350.

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.

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.

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

Under section 50(4) of the Ain, if any writ petition is filed without payment of requisite amount of money or security, as the case may be, challenging the order or decree directly or indirectly by the judgment-debtors, in such case, if the Rule issued in the writ petition or appeal against such order is discharged/dismissed, interest @ 25% has to be calculated during the period for which such matter was pending before the High Court Division or the Appellate Division. .....Topman Fashion Wears Limited vs Dutch Bangla Bank Limited, 70 DLR 487.

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

The suit is still pending. The provision of section 50(4) of the Ain was not applicable. The Adalat allowing amendment of the plaint of imposing 25% interest during the period on which writ petition was pending before the High Court Division cannot be said to be lawful. .....Topman Fashion Wears Limited vs Dutch Bangla Bank Limited, 70 DLR 487.

The Artha Rin Adalat (Amendment) Ain, 2010, (Act No. 16 of 2010) came into force on 30.3.2010 by which section 50 of the Ain, 2003 was amended increasing the rate of interest from 8% to 12%. 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. .....M/S Rajib Traders Vs. Artha Rin Adalat, Jessore and another, (Civil), 5(1)LNJ 168

The court has no power to exempt the defendant respondent from the liability of paying up interest however high rate it may be ... since the financial institution bank itself preserves the exclusive right to exempt any-body from payment of interest of loan they sanctioned. ...Sonali Bank Vs. Md. Abu Baker Sarker, (Civil), 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 156

Section 50— মঞ্জুরিকৃত ঋণের সুদ মওকুফের অধিকার শুধুমাত্র আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠানের। ফলে আদালত বিবাদীকে (প্রতিবাদী) সুদহার উচ্চ হওয়া সত্ত্বেও দায় পরিশোধ হতে মুক্তি দিতে পারে না। …..Sonali Bank Vs. Md. Abu Baker Sarker, (Civil), 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 156 ....View Full Judgment

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

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

Bank officials are very much reluctant to provide the bank statement containing the outstanding dues of the borrower even after issuance of the direction of the Court. This sort of attitude is tantamount to contempt of Court. If bank official does not comply with the order of the court, then the court may proceed against them under section 52 of the Ain, or in an appropriate case, it may refer to the High Court Division for taking punitive measure against the delinquent officials. .....City Bank Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat 26 BLC 601.

It persistently comes to our notice that Bank officials are very much reluctant to provide the bank statement containing the outstanding dues of the borrower even after issuance of the direction of the Court. This sort of attitude is tantamount to contempt of Court. In this circumstance, if bank official does not comply with the order of the court, then the court may proceed against them under section 52 of the Ain, 2003 or in an appropriate case, it may refer to the High Court Division for taking punitive measure against the delinquent officials. It is expected that Bank and Financial Institutions should comply with the order of the Court with utmost expedition. …City Bank Ltd Vs. Court of 1st JDJ & Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 217

Section 52— আদালতের নির্দেশ জারির পরও ঋণ গ্রহীতার বকেয়া ঋণের স্থিতির স্টেটমেন্ট প্রদানে ব্যাংক অফিসারগণ দ্বিধাদ্বন্দে ছিল। ব্যাংক অফিসারদের এই ধরণের দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি আদালত অবমাননার সামিল। এই পরিস্থিতিতে ব্যাংক অফিসারগণ যদি আদালতের আদেশ পরিপালন না করে তাহলে ২০০৩ সালের আইনের ৫২ ধারার অধীন আদালত অবমাননার জন্য ব্যবস্থা গ্রহণ করতে পারে অথবা এইরূপ অবাধ্য ব্যাংক অফিসারদের বিরুদ্ধে শাস্তিমূলক ব্যবস্থা গ্রহণের জন্য বিষয়টি হাইকোর্ট বিভাগে প্রেরণ করতে পারে। এটা প্রত্যাশা ছিল ব্যাংক ও আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠান আদালতের আদেশ পরিপালনে সদা সচেষ্ট থাকবে। …City Bank Ltd Vs. Court of 1st JDJ & Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 217 ....View Full Judgment

The High Court Division finds that the learned Judge of the Artha Rin Adalat construed the decree in the light of admitted fact that the property sold by auction, is, indeed, property actually mortgaged as security against loan. In this situation the Adalat in an appropriate case to ascertain the circumstances under which the decree was passed and ordered sale of the property by auction can consider the application for correction of the schedule maintaining true intent and purpose of the decree. …..Md. Rukunuddin Mollah -VS.- Artha Rin Adalat 6 ALR - 2015(2)25

The Adalat shall bear in mind that at all material times under the revived execution proceedings, whatever the outcome, it shall remain governed by Section 57 of the Act and guided by the objective to probe into the heart of the matter in which its process may have been abused by any party in the execution proceedings to the detriment of a third party. …..Khan A Sobur Trust -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka and others 4 ALR 2014(2) 144

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. …..Mahbub Ali, Son of late Maharam Ali, of Gusra,Post Office-Noapara, Police Station-Raouzan, District- Chittagong.-Vs.-The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat-1, Chittagong and others. 4 ALR 2014(2) 333

In exercising that power the Adalat must subscribe to the core objective of the Act which is to facilitate recovery of money. Accordingly, once the loan repayment is forthcoming, the Adalat will correspondingly find it within its power to permit such repayment and recovery of loan, thereby, doing that which is right and just as contemplated in Section 57. …..Messrs World Resources Limited -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 3 3 ALR(2014)(1) 446

The High Court Division held that the executing Adalat has no jurisdiction to waive interest exercising it's inherent power under section 57 of the Ain for it is the absolute domain of the petitioner Bank to waive interest of the party concern exercising it's discretion in proper manner. …..Sonali Bank Limited, Head Office Motijheel Commercial Area, represented by its Manager, Sonali Bank Limited, Laldigi Corporate Branch, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Chittagong. -Vs.- Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Shahbagh, Dhaka. (Spl. Original) 9 ALR (HCD) 14-18

The High Court Division held that that the mediator took initiative to settle the dispute amicably between the parties and to that effect he sat with the parties concerned for several days but failed to settle the dispute and in that view of the matter the mediator submitted his report before the Adalat without taking signatures or thumb impressions of the parties thereon. Since the parties failed to settle the dispute among them amicably, and it was not the case of the petitioner that the Mediator did not seat with the parties for several days to settle the matter through mediation, non obtaining signatures of the parties is a mere irregularity and not illegality. …..Mohammad Ali Proprietor of M/S. Imam Motors Son of late Badiur Rahman Road No. 8, House No. 97, O.R. Nizam Road, Police Station-Kotwali, District Chittagong -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong and others. (Spl. Original) 12 ALR (HCD) 34-37

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

Whether the Bank has produced all the documents in support of its case or not is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. It has to be decided by the learned Judge of the Adalat on merit after taking evidence of both sides.
The High Court Division observed that it appears from the materials on record that the defendant-petitioner has been filing applications one after another before the Adalat as a delaying device. One of the delaying devices is filing of this meritless writ petition in the year 2010, but without taking any initiative for disposal of this rule within a period of about eight years. Eventually, the respondent side took initiative several times to get the matter heard. As a result, the rule was, eventually, heard by this court. The Bank has filed statements of accounts and all other necessary papers before the Adalat and the documents were marked as exhibits. The learned Judge of the Adalat, upon perusal of those documents and ascertaining the claim of the plaintiff, would decide the suit on merit. .....Mahbub Minhaj -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat 3rd Court, Dhaka (Spl.Original) 19 ALR (HCD) 45-47

The entire amount of the decree has to be adjusted by the private sale it the petitioner did not intend to adjust the entire liability by making the prayer of private sale of the mortgaged property which is also requirement under Order XXI Rule 83 of the Code, the Adalat rightly refused to allow the application under Order XXI Rule 83 of the Code
The High Court Division held that if the decree holder comes forward with consent to the prayer for disposing of the mortgaged property by the judgment debtor through private sale, The Adalat may allow in such circumstances inasmuch as the purpose for selling the property is for recovery of decrtal dues acquiring maximum price of the property for the interest of both the decree holder and the judgment debtor. But in this case, the decree holder Bank is also vehemently opposing to the private sale. Regard being had to the above, the High Court Division is of the view that relating to disposal of mortgaged property under the present decree, the Adalat rightly refused to allow the application under Order XXI Rule 83 of the Code and as, the High Court Division does not find any merit in this Rule. In the result, the Rule is discharged. .....Md. Sirajul Islam -Vs.- The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others. (Spl. Original) 17 ALR (HCD) 29-33

Section 57 of the Ain confirms the inherent power of the court. Section 57 of the Ain is not any enabling provision for setting-aside of sale. Section 57 of the Ain reiterates the provision of section 151 of CPC, which just confirms the inherent power of court. Inherent power of the court cannot be exercised when there is specific provision in CPC and other law. .....Shamsuddin Ahmed vs City Bank Ltd, 18 BLC 30.

Section 57 of the Act, empowers the Adalat to give adequate relief in cases as in hand, even if it is assumed but not conceded that there is no scope to give the petitioner appropriate relief by the Adalat under the other provision of the Act. .....AB Mannaf Sheikh vs 1st Joint District Judge Court and Artha Rin Adalat, 19 BLC 493.

Section 57 of the Act, 2003, in addition, authorizes the Adalat to pass any supplementary order to secure ends of justice, on consideration of the facts and circumstances under the proceedings. Therefore, we are of the view that section 57 is the appropriate provision incorporated in the statute (Act, 2003) authorizing the Adalat to pass the necessary order in order to ensure realization of the decretal dues. As such, in the public interest to ensure realization of public money, the Artha Rin Adalat exercised the statutory authority under section 57 of the Act, 2003 and by the impugned order directed the petitioner to deposit his passport. Hence, Article 36 of the Constitution has not been violated in passing the impugned order by the Adalat. .....Ali Imam Vs. The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat & ors, (Spl. Original), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 76 ....View Full Judgment

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.

57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 read with Article 36 of the Constitution:
Since the Banks are the custodian of the public money and the plaintiff-Bank is in the run of realisation of public money from the loan defaulters, of course the anxiety of the Bank attracts the public interest as envisaged under Article 36 of the Constitution. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the Adalat rightly passed the impugned order in the public interest having legal sanction under section 57 of the Act which does not call for any interference. .....Ali Imam Vs. The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat & ors, (Spl. Original), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 76 ....View Full Judgment

Due to the State Emergency the damage has been taken place and the defendant suffered a huge loss but in such a situation there is no provision in the Ain to remit any interest. .....AB Bank Limited vs Khan Enterprise (Civil) 23 BLC 657

Before passing an order of attachment before judgment, a court must be satisfied that the defendant has been trying to frustrate the effect of the decree that might be passed against him by disposing of the property or removing it from the jurisdiction of the court. This suspicion must be based on some visible materials which are to be found in the affidavit filed by the party or otherwise. .....Reliance Finance Limited vs Judge Artha Rin Adalat No. 4 Dhaka (Spl Original) 23 BLC 944

The mediator took initiative to settle the dispute amicably between the parties and to that effect he sat with the parties concerned for several days but failed to settle the dispute and in that view of the matter the mediator submitted his report before the Adalat without taking signatures or thumb impressions of the parties thereon. Since the parties failed to settle the dispute among them amicably, and it was not the case of the petitioner that the mediator did not seat with the parties for several days to settle the matter through mediation, non obtaining signatures of the parties is a mere irregularity and not illegality. .....Mohammad Ali vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong (Spl Original) 24 BLC 89

It is an established principle of law that "substance" cannot be given precedence over "form". In the absence of the proper "form" of the affidavit, the plant is not liable to be rejected; it will at best render an ex-parte judgment invalid. .....Rashida Yasmin vs Bangladesh, Secretary Minister of Law (Spl Original), 25 BLC 212

Since the power to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court is an inherent power of Adalat under section 57 of the Ain, the Adalat concerned can even suo-moto take cognizance of such fraudulent act or mistake committed by anyone before the Court or any parties of a particular proceeding in that Court. .....South-East Bank Limited vs Md ASM Rubaiyat Forman (Civil) 27 BLC 447

The provision of section 57 of the Ain will come into play and the Adalat has perfectly exercised his inherent jurisdiction in setting aside the restoration order of the suit apparently fraud has been practiced in obtaining the order. .....Suruj Molla (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 27 BLC 743

Section 57 has been incorporated by the legislature to come forward to aid the litigant(s) under such circumstances to secure ends of justice. Although the decree-holder-Bank had the scope to go for 2nd execution case but he is debarred here due to expiry of 6 years and so he has opted to resort section 57 exercising inherent power of the Court. .....Elited Iron and Steel GP Sheet Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 28 BLC 781

The questions may only be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit on taking evidence and those questions cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. .....Hubble Corporate Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat, 64 DLR 86.

The order of rectifying the decretal amount under section 57 of the Adalat read with section 152 of the Code cannot be declared illegal and without lawful authority since a writ jurisdiction where there is a scope of appeal where appellate court having sufficient authority will decide the matter with the help of evidence. .....Doel Apparels Ltd vs Judge Artha Rin Adalat, 66 DLR 341.

The right of redemption—The right of redemption of mortgage has never stood extinguished at any material time. Accordingly, it was always open to the petitioner in particular in the facts and circumstances to seek redemption of her mortgage upon a settlement arrived at with the bank of financial institution concerned. Once the loan repayment is forthcoming, the Adalat will correspondingly find it within its power to permit such repayment and recovery of loan, thereby, doing that which is right and just as contemplated in section 57. .....Rokaiya Amin vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Finance Division, Ministry of Finance, 67 DLR 545.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Under section 57 of the Ain, the Adalat is empowered to pass any order for ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Adalat. The Judge of the Adalat for ends of justice to correct the inadvertent mistake committed by it in rejecting the execution case on the ground of being barred by limitation, although it was not barred by limitation, which is evident on the face of the record. The Adalat had jurisdiction to pass such order to correct the error committed by it by miscalculation for the ends of justice. .....Jafrul Islam vs Bangladesh, 68 DLR 323.

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.

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.

Even after closing of execution case the Court is always open and empowered to exercise the authority under section 57 of the Act, 2003 to reopen the execution case. .....Rizwan Ahmed vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original), 72 DLR 397

Where ex-parte decree is contaminated due to apparent fraud, the petitioners do not require paying 10% of the decretal amount. In an appropriate case, the Adalat may invoke section 57 of the Ain, to do justice and to undo injustice. The Adalat could have set-aside the ex-parte decree invoking section 57 of the Ain, as it was obtained by practicing fraud apparent on the record. .....Monnujan Begum Ruby vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original), 73 DLR 492

Suggestions for Artharin Adalats of Bangladesh:
The overall suggestion for the Adalat is that the Ain, 2003 is aimed at expeditious disposal of the Bank’s/Financial Institution’s claim for recovery of money which is, in fact, the money of the State. If the Adalat, after putting its best effort to serve the notice upon the defendant/s, is satisfied that the notice has been served properly, it should proceed towards the disposal of the suit. The Adalat should bear in mind that while there are unscrupulous defendant/s to delay the disposal of the Artharin suits and thereby frustrate the scheme of the Ain, 2003, however, there are also bonafide defendant/s who might be victimised by the Adalat’s inconsiderate hurriedness. The Adalat being in a better position to assess the above issues/factors from the manner and style of conducting the case by the defendant-side, it should pass appropriate order as per the demand of the circumstances invoking its inherent power under Section 57 of the Ain, 2003. The bottomline for the Adalat is to ensure fair justice for the parties to the suit and, in doing so, when the Adalat shall endeavour to protect the interest of a clean and bonafide defendant, the Adalat shall also not allow the cunning loandefaulters to abuse the process of the Adalat. To save a vulnerable defendant from the unreasonable demand of the Banks/Financial Institutions and also to save the defendant’s property from selling at a shockingly low-price, which very often takes place in connivance with the staff of the Bank/Financial Institution and the concerned Court staff, if needed, the Adalat may exercise its inherent power recording the detailed reasons to substantiate its order. ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140

Section 57— বাংলাদেশের অর্থঋণ আদালতসমূহের জন্য পরামর্শ - সর্বোপরি আদালতের জন্য পরামর্শ হলো ২০০৩ সালের অর্থঋণ আদালতের উদ্দেশ্য ছিল ব্যাংক ও আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠান কর্তৃক মঞ্জুরকৃত ঋণের অর্থ আদায়ের মামলার দ্রুত নিষ্পত্তি করা। বস্তুতপক্ষে এই অর্থ রাষ্ট্রের। যদি আদালত সন্তুষ্ট হয় যে, বিবাদীকে যথাযথভাবে নোটিশ দেওয়া হয়েছে তাহলে মামলা নিষ্পত্তির জন্য অগ্রসর হওয়া উচিৎ। আদালতের মনে রাখা উচিৎ অসাধু বিবাদী অর্থঋণ আদালতের মামলা নিষ্পত্তি বিলম্বের মাধ্যমে ২০০৩ সালের আইনের উদ্দেশ্যকে ব্যর্থ করবে। পাশাপাশি কিছু সৎ বিবাদীও আছে যারা আদালতের অবিবেচনাপূর্ণ তাড়াহুড়ার শিকার হয়। আদালত এই অবস্থায় বিবাদীর মামলা বিচারের ক্ষেত্রে বিদ্যমান রীতি ও পদ্ধতিতে বিষয় বা ঘটনা যথাযথভাবে নিরূপনের মাধ্যমে পরিস্থিতি বিবেচনায় উপযুক্ত আদেশের জন্য ২০০৩ সালের আইনের ৫৭ ধারা অন্তর্নিহিত ক্ষমতা প্রয়োগ করতে পারবে। আদালতের মূলকাজ হলো মামলার পক্ষদ্বয়ের ন্যায় বিচার নিশ্চিত করা এবং ন্যায় বিচার নিশ্চিতের জন্য আদালতের প্রচেষ্টা হবে স্বচ্ছ ও সৎ বিবাদীকে রক্ষা করা। সেইসাথে আদালত চতুর ঋণখেলাপি বিবাদীকে আদালত প্রক্রিয়া অপব্যবহারের অনুমতি না দেওয়া। ব্যাংক ও আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠানের অযৌক্তিক দাবী থেকে দুর্বল বিবাদীকে ও ব্যাংক বা আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠান এবং আদালত সংশ্লিষ্টদের যোগসাজশে কম মূল্যে বিবাদীর সম্পত্তি বিক্রি হতে রক্ষা করা। এক্ষেত্রে প্রয়োজনে আদেশ বাস্তবায়নের কারণ লিপিবদ্ধ করে অন্তর্নিহিত ক্ষমতা প্রয়োগ করতে পারে। ...Osman Gazi Chy Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140 ....View Full Judgment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether Artha Execution Case restore which apparently was barred by under Section 28(4) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 by filing an application under Section 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
Held; When the statute prescribes the special provision of limitation for filing a new Artha Rin Execution Case after rejection (f) or disposal (fe) of the first execution case, taking shelter of the inherent jurisdiction under section 57 of the Ain for restoration of the same will defeat the whole purpose of special law of limitation as contemplated in the statute. .....M Abdul Barkat Mollah Shamsud Doulah Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Ors 24BLT (HCD)277

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

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

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

The provisions of section 47 are applicable at the time of institution of a suit under the Ain, 2003. Section 60 cannot be interpreted in such a way that section 47 can be applied from the stage of institution of a suit which was filed long before the Ain, 2003 came into force. .....Humayun Hossain Khan vs Bangladesh 61 DLR 513.

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.

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.

Preamble—Intention of the Legislature clear —On a plain reading of the preamble of the statute, it transpires that the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 (Act VIII of 2003) was promulgated with a view to further consolidate and amend the existing law i.e. Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 for speedy recovery of loan of the financial institution. Whereas, by virtue of section 60(1) of the Ain, 2003 the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 has altogether been repealed and in explicit terms the legislature manifested its clear intention in section 60(3) that so far pending cases are concerned the provision enunciated under Ain, 2003, are to be made applicable. In other words, the Ain, 2003 did not conceive any saving clause in order to make the earlier repealed Ain applicable for the pending cases to be disposed of under the Ain, 1990. .....Udayan Garments (Pvt) Ltd vs Bangladesh 59 DLR 615.

Preamble—Remedial Legislation—The above language of the preamble of two separate enactments are more or less identical in order to address the problem of recovery of loans disbursed in favour of the loanee. In fact, Act VIII of 2003 is a remedial legislation which has been promulgated in an integrated manner with an intention to recover the loan from the defaulter loanee by repealing the previous Act IV of 1990. Normally it is the procedure which is in force, at the time of the trial or the disposal of the suit must be applied. Section 60(1) of the Ain provides ‘‘অর্থ ঋণ আদালত (১৯৯০ সালের ৪নং আইন) আইন এতদ্বারা রহিত করা হইল।’’ In the same breath, by virtue of section 60(3) all the provisions as enacted under the new Ain have been made applicable to the pending proceedings initiated under the Ain, 1990.
In fact, section 6(e) is not at all applicable where the repeal is followed by a fresh legislation. It is to be remembered that where a statute is repealed and a new statute takes place for the same purpose, the action under the repealed statutes continues but that does not mean that the procedure under the repealed enactment must be followed. The statute dealing with matters of procedure may properly have retrospective effect unless that construction be textually inadmissible. .....Angels Corporation (Pvt) Ltd vs Bangladesh, 59 DLR 601.

The execution cases filed under the Ain, 1990 comes within the meaning of "বিচারাধীন মামলা" as contemplated in section 60(3) of the Ain, 2003. Section 60(3) of the Ain, 2003 manifests the view that the Artha Rin Adalat established under section 4 of the Ain, 2003 has entirely inherited upon repealing the Ain, 1990 in which all the cases relating to recovery of loan including execution cases pending in those Adalats under the Ain, 1990 stood transferred by operation of law to the Artha Rin Adalat constituted under the new Ain namely, the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 providing statutory power to dispose of all the pending cases in accordance with the provisions of the Ain, 2003, as far as possible. .....Mofiz Mia vs Artha Rin Adalat, 60 DLR 417.

In conclusion, we hold that the execution case filed under the Ain, 1990 comes within the meaning of "বিচারাধীন মামলা" as contemplated in section 60(3) of the Ain, 2003. As already mentioned section 60(3) of the Ain, 2003 manifests the view that the Artha Rin Adalat established under section 4 of the Ain, 2003 has entirely inherited upon repealing the Ain, 1990 in which all the cases relating to recovery of loan including execution cases pending in those Adalats under the Ain, 1990 stood transferred by operation of law to the Artha Rin Adalat constituted under the new Ain, namely the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 providing statutory power to dispose of all the pending cases in accordance with the provisions of the Ain, 2003, as far as possible. .....Kazi Masudur Rahman vs Artha Rin Adalat, 60 DLR 679.

Under the provision of sub-section (3) of section 60 of the Ain the said proceedings shall be taken to be a proceeding under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. Therefore, the question raised can be decided at the trial of the suit and at the time of receiving evidence from the parties. Besides, the impugned order was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction as the order was passed under the repealed Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990. .....Zahidi Millah vs Artha Rin Adalat, Khulna, 11 BLC 238.

It appears that the Execution Cases were filed by the decree holder bank to execute the decree before the Adalat constituted under the Ain, 1990 and thereafter, the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 having come into force on 1-5-2003 upon repealing the Ain of 1990 in which the said execution cases automatically transferred to the Artha Rin Adalat established under the Ain, 2003 under the provision of section 60(3) of the said Ain. It also appears that the Adalat rejected the applications for dismissing the execution cases on the ground that since there is no indication in the Ain, 2003 for disposal of the execution cases filed under the Ain, 1990 the Code of Civil Procedure shall be applicable relating to those execution cases. On an analysis of the impugned orders vis-a-vis the law, it appears that there is no flaw in the reasoning of the Adalat or any ground to assail the impugned orders which are based on proper appreciation of fact and law. .....Mofiz Mia vs Artha Rin Adalat, 13 BLC 444.

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

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

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

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