Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (HCD)



Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of 2003) (অর্থ ঋণ আদালত আইন)
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation Head Note Parties Name Reference/Citation
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.

Begum Shirin Akhtar vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation 16 BLC 1
Section 2(Ka)

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

M/S Wonderland Toys Limited -Vs.- Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs 13 ALR (HCD) 234-235
Section 2(Ga)

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

Kazi Md Mofizur Rahman vs Artha Rin Adalat 24 BLC 431
Section 2(Ga) (2) and 2(Ga)(3)

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

Kazi Mohammad Mofizur Rahman -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and others 15 ALR (HCD) 243-257
Section 2

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

Nazim Uddin (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat 24 BLC 732
Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6

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

Premier Bank Limited vs FV Rainbow-1 (Admiralty Jurisdiction) 23 BLC 727
Section 2(Ka)(4)

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.

Begum Shirin Akhtar vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation 16 BLC 1
Section 2(Ka)(4)

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

Rupali Bank Limited Dhaka vs Artha Rin Adalat Dhaka 21 BLC 136
Section 2(Ga)

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.

Anudip Autos Ltd vs Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs 19 BLC 610
Section 2(Ga)

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.

Anudip Autos Ltd vs Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs 19 BLC 610
Section 2(2)-2(6)

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

Pubali Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Cox's Bazar 25 BLC 61
Section 2

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.

Shamsul Islam (Md) vs Sonali Bank 66 DLR 222
Section 2

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.

IFIC Bank Ltd vs Beximco Holdings Ltd 57 DLR 154
Section 2

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.

Manager, Bangladesh Krishi Bank va Nurul Islam 52 DLR 434
Sections 2(kha), 4(1), 4(4), 5(2), 6(1) and 26

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

Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20
Section 2

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.

Kazi Jawaherul Islam vs Standard Co-operative Credit Society Limited 50 DLR 333
Sections 2(Kha) and 5

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.

Harunur Rashid vs Subordinate Judge, Bogra 50 DLR 170
Sections 2(Kha) and 5(1)

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

54 DLR 458 Pubali Bank Ltd vs Md Mamunur Rahman
Sections 2(Kha) and 5(1)

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.

56 DLR 588 Al Baraka Bank Bangladesh Ltd. vs Rina Alam
Section 2(Ga)

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.

Alco Hygienic Products Ltd. vs. Islami Bank 47 Ltd. 47 DLR 264
Section 2(Ga)

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.

Agrani Bank, Janna Branch, Manikganj vs. AFM Enamul Haq 50 DLR 173
Section 2(Ga)

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

Sonali Bank Limited vs Bangladesh 68 DLR 545
Section 2(Ga)(4)

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.

Angels Corporation (Pvt) Ltd vs Bangladesh 59 DLR 601
Sections 2(Ga)(4) and 50(1)

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.

Angels Corporation (Pvt) Ltd vs Bangladesh 59 DLR 601
Sections 3, 26, 30 and 34

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.

Manik K Bhattacherjee vs Artha Rin Adalat 16 BLC 195
Section 3

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

Mr. A.N. Sharfuddin and another -Vs.- Ornate Services Limited and others 28 ALR (HCD) 149
Sections 3, 4 and 5

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

Premier Bank Limited -Vs.- F.V. Rainbow-1 and others 11 ALR (HCD) 128-132
Section 3

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.

City Bank Limited vs Valentine Sweaters Limited 26 BLC 271
Section 3

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.

Rex Apparels (Private) Limited vs Bangladesh 21 BLC 395
Sections 3, 26 and 34

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.

ABM Shirajum Monir vs Subordinate Judge 14 BLC 716
Sections 3, 26, 30 and 34

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.

Manik K Bhattacharjee vs Artha Rin Adalat 16 BLC 195
Sections 3, 26, 30 and 34

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.

ABM Shirajum Monir vs Subordinate Judge 14 BLC 716
Section 3

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.

Sultan Alam @SA Bada Vs. Rupali Bank 46 DLR 292
Sections 3 and 5(1)

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.

Dr Md Asadullah vs Sonali Bank Ltd 62 DLR 474
Section 3

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

Nure Alam Siddique (Tulu) vs State 71 DLR 570
Sections 3, 5, 20 and 26

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

Shirajul Islam Mollah vs Bangladesh Bank 73 DLR 554
Section 3

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

S.K. Amir Hossain and another. -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 193
Section 4(2)(3)

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.

ARA Jute Mills Limited vs. Janata Bank 3 ADC (2006) 684=58 DLR (AD) 126.
Section 4(3)(5)

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

Idris Miah (Md) vs Bangladesh 10 BLC 728
Sections 4(6) and 19(6)

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.

Osman Gazi Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat 21 BLC 322
Sections 4(7) and 41

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.

Sheikh Md Rafiqul Islam (Babul) vs Manager, Uttara Bank Limited 66 DLR 131
Section 4 and 4(7)

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

One Bank Ltd. Vs. Chaya Developer (Pvt.) Ltd. & antr 4LNJ 292
Section 4(4)(7)

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

One Bank Ltd. Vs. Chaya Developer (Pvt.) Ltd. & antr 4LNJ 292
Section 4(5)(7)

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

One Bank Ltd. Vs. Chaya Developer (Pvt.) Ltd. & antr 4LNJ 292
Section 5(2)

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.

City Bank Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat 26 BLC 601
Sections 5(4) and 60(3)

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.

Shahjahan Mia (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh 12 BLC 742
Section 5

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.

Abdul Mukid (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat Khulna 66 DLR 211
Section 5

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

Janata Bank Vs. Shampur Sugar Mills Ltd 1 BLD (1981) 248
Section 5

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.

Harunar Rashid vs Subordinate Judge,Bogra 50 DLR 170
Section 5

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.

Agrani Bank vs AFM Emamul Huq 50 DLR 173
Section 5

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.

Eastern Bank Limited vs Subordinate Judge 49 DLR 531
Section 5

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.

Sonali Bank vs Ali Tannery Lid 48 DLR 57
Section 5

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.

Sultan Alam @ SA Badal vs Rupali Bank 46 DLR 292
Sections 5 and 2(Kha)

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.

Harunur Rashid vs Subordinate Judge, Bogra 50 DLR 170
Section 5(1)

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.

Ayub Hossain (Md) vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh 66 DLR 597
Section 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 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.

Dr Md Asadullah vs Sonali Bank Ltd 62 DLR 474
Sections 5(1) and 2(Kha)

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.

Pubali Bank Ltd. vs. Md Mamunur Rahman 54 DLR 458
Section 5(1)

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

Monowara Haque vs Rowshan Ara Istaque 74 DLR 429
Section 5(2)

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.

Eastern Bank Ltd vs Sufia Re-Rolling Mills and Steel Ltd 56 DLR 530
Section 5(5)

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

Md. Shahin Ikbal Vs. General Certificate Officer & ors 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 168
Sections 5(3) and 28(1)

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.

FR Garments (Pvt) Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka 61 DLR 296
Sections 5(3) and 28(1)

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.

FR Garments (Pvt) Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka 61 DLR 223
Section 5(4)

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.

Ripan Packaging and Accessories Ltd. vs. Eastern Bank Ltd 54 DLR 31; 2002 BLD 127
Section 5(4)(5)

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.

MAC, Proprietor Mahatabuddin Chowdhury vs Agrani Bank. Thatari Branch, Dhaka 47 DLR 233
Section 5 (2)

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

City Bank Ltd Vs. Court of 1st JDJ & Artha Rin Adalat & anr 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 217
Section 5

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.

Inter­national Tannery vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 17 BLC 380
Section 5(10) read with Section 24, CPC

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.

SM Sirajul Islam vs. Janata Bank, WAPDA Branch 66 DLR 119
Sections 5(11)

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.

Eastern Bank Ltd vs Sufia Re-Rolling Mills and Steel Ltd 56 DLR 530
Sections 5(11)

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.

Al Baraka Bank Bangladesh Ltd vs Rina Alam 56 DLR 588
Sections 5(11) and 11

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

Shafiqul Islam vs Artha Rin Adalat 75 DLR 665
Sections 5(11)

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.

Nusrat Jahan vs Artha Rin Adalat 29 BLC 117
Section 5(1)

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

Bank Asia Limited Vs. IPDC of Bangladesh 25 BLT (HCD) 222
Section 5(1) with Section 6(5)

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

Bank Asia Limited Vs. IPDC of Bangladesh 25 BLT (HCD) 222
Section 5(4)

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

S.K. Amir Hossain and another. -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 193
Sections 5(2) & (3) and 34(1)

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

Monirul Islam -Vs.- Joint District Judge, 1st Court and Artha Rin Adalat, Bhola and others 16 ALR (HCD) 69-70
Section 5

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

Md. Shahbuddin Alam Vs. Bangladesh Bank & ors 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 151
Section 5

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

Premier Bank Limited -Vs.- F.V. Rainbow-1 and others 11 ALR (HCD) 128-132
Sections 5 and 12

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

Mohammad Ali -Vs.- Bangladesh Bank and others 26 ALR (HCD) 41
Section 5(3) (4)

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

Premier Cold Storage Ltd. and another -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 2, Dhaka and another 13 ALR (HCD) 285-290
Sections 5(4) and 33(7)

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

Messrs World Resources Limited -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 3 3 ALR(2014)(1) 446
Section 5(10)

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

A. M.Zahidul Alam -VS- Janata Bank 2 ALR (2013)(HCD) 25
Section 5

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.

International Tannery vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 17 BLC 380
Section 5

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.

United Commercial Bank Lad vt. Freshner Bucket and Redging Industries 5 MLR (2000) 5=3 BLC 430
Sections 5 and 7

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.

Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation vs Shahid Sarwar Abul Hossain 9 BLT (2001) 289 = 6 BLC 751
Section 6

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

Mahbub Ali Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat & ors 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 102
Section 6(2)

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

Shetu International Pvt. ltd & ors Vs. Artha Rin Adalat-2, Dhaka & anr 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 157
Section 6(4)

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

Osman Gazi Chowdhury Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140
Section 6(4)

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

Osman Gazi Chowdhury Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140
Section 6(4) and 19(1)

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

Osman Gazi Chowdhury Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140
Section 6(4):

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

Osman Gazi Chowdhury Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140
Section 6(4), 19(1), 19(6)

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

Osman Gazi Chowdhury Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140
6(5) and 34(1)

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

Ali Imam Vs. The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat & ors 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 76
Sections 6 and 34

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

Md. Ali Ajgar -Vs.- Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh & others 13 ALR (HCD) 9-13
Section 6(4)

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

Mrs. Nahid Anower Khan -Vs .- Artha Rin Adalat 3 ALR(2014)(1) 241
Section 6(5)

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

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
Section 6(5)

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

A.B.M. Liton -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh (3 ALR(2014)(1) 238
Sections 6(5) and 34

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

Md. Rabiul Ehsan Khan -Vs.- The Government of Bangladesh 14 ALR (HCD) 117-120
Section 6(5)

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

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 12 ALR (HCD) 99-100
Sections 6(5) and 33(5)

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

Md. Nazim Uddin -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 4th Court, Dhaka Judges Court Building, Dhaka and others 13 ALR (HCD) 136-139
Sections 6 (5) and 57

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

Md. Rafiul Alam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and 2(two) others 9 ALR (HCD) 277-282
Sections 6(5)

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

Sing Tel Asia Pacific Investment Pte. Limited, and others. -Vs.-Ministry of law, and others 21 ALR (HCD) 62-66
Sections 6(5)

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

Mr. Jainul Karim. -Vs.- Govt. of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others 16 ALR (HCD) 180-185
Sections 6(5) and 57

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

Md. Rafiul Alam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and 2(two) others 19 ALR (HCD) 185-189
Sections 6(5)

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

Pubali Bank Limited. -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Cox’s Bazar and others 24 ALR (HCD) 398
Section 6(1)

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.

Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd vs Md. Salauddin 16 BLC 277
Section 6(2)

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

Rashida Yasmin vs Bangladesh, Secretary Minister of Law 25 BLC 212
Section 6(4)

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.

Osman Gazi Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat 21 BLC 322
Section 6(4)

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.

Osman Gazi Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat 21 BLC 322
Section 6(5)

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.

Uttara Bank Limited vs People's Republic of Bangladesh 26 BLC 62
Section 6(5)

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.

Nusrat Jahan vs Artha Rin Adalat 29 BLC 117
Section 6(5)

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.

Abul Hossain Khan vs Artha Rin Adalat 29 BLC 311
Section 6(5)

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.

One Bank Ltd vs Chaya Developer (Pvt) Ltd 21 BLC (AD) 203
Sections 6(5) and 32(1)(2)

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.

Harunurur Rashid Bhuiyan vs Pubali Bank Ltd 15 BLC 458
Sections 6(5) and 57

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.

Abdus Sattar Miah vs Bangladesh 14 BLC 412
Sections 6(5)

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

Elite Iron and Steel GP Sheet Ltd vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 4th Court 23 BLC 655
Sections 6(5)

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

Mahbub Ali vs Artha Rin Adalat 23 BLC 27 BLC 77
Section 6(1)

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.

Sonali Bank Limited vs UT Garments Limited 67 DLR 265
Sections 6(2)

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.

Radha Rani Sadhu Kha vs Durga Rani Adhikari 47 DLR 360
Sections 6(2)

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.

BR Apparels Ltd vs Bangladesh 60 DLR 76
Section 6(2)(3)(4)

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

Janata Bank Limited vs Diniat Begum 73 DLR 176
Section 6(5)

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.

Major Monjur Quader (Retd) vs Bangladesh Bank 59 DLR 451
Section 6(5)

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

Nasrin Akther vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat-1 71 DLR 24
Section 6(5)

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

Ruhul Amin (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat 74 DLR 618
Section 6(Ka)

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.

Sonali Bank Limited vs UT Garments Limited 67 DLR 265
Section 6(5)

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

Jainul Karim & Anr Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Anr 27BLT(HCD)111
Section 6(5)

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

.Mahbub Ali Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Ors 23BLT (HCD)115
Section 6(1)

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.

Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd. VS Mr. Md. Salauddin and others 1 LNJ 1
Sections 6(5) and 26

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

One Bank Ltd. Vs. Chaya Developer (Pvt.) Ltd 4 LNJ 292
Section 6

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

Md. Shariful Alam Vs Artha Rin Adalat & anr 5 SCOB [2015] HCD 6
Section 6

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

Mahbub Ali Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat & ors 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 102
6(5) and 34(1)

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

Ali Imam Vs. The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat & ors 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 76
Section 6(5)

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

Abul Hossain Khan & anr Vs. Artha Rin Adalat, Barguna & Ors. 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 110
Sections 6(5), 34(1)

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

Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20
Section 6(5)

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

Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20
Section 7(1)

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

Shetu International Pvt. ltd & ors Vs. Artha Rin Adalat-2, Dhaka & anr 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 157
Section 7

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.

Rowshan Ara Begum vs Rupali Bank Ltd 68 DLR 265
Section 7

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.

Sonali Bank vs Md Al-Akram (Badal), 46 DLR 671; Agrani Bank vs Artha Rin Adalat 55 DLR 389
Sections 7

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

Delwar Hossain vs. Janata Bank 8 BLC 411.
Section 8(7)

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

Rezia Bibi alias Rezia Khatun Bibi vs Artha Rin Adalat 24 BLC 44
Section 8(Ga)

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

Mohammad Ali vs Judge, (Joint District Judge) Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong 24 BLC 120
Section 8

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.

Pubali Bank Ltd vs. Md. Nurul Hoque 14 BLC 494
Sections 8(2)

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.

Mir Rashed Ali Ahmed vs. Artha Rin Adalat 17 BLT (2009) 416
Sections 8(3) (4) and (5)

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.

Shaharul Amin Golder vs. Artha Rin Adalat 18 BLT 127
Section 8 (Ga)

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

Mohammad Ali -Vs.- Judge, (Joint District Judge) Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong and others 12 ALR (HCD) 54-55
Section 9(5) read with 13(1)

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

Md. Arfan Uddin Akand & Ors Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Ors. 15 BLT (HCD) 343
Section 9(5)

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.

Md. Arfan Uddin Akand vs Artha Rin Adalat 15 BLT 343
Section 10, 19, 41

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

Mosarrof Hosen and anr Vs. Artha Rin Adalat-1, Dhaka & ors 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 126
Sections 10(1) and 19(2)

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.

ABSCO Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat No.2, Dhaka 67 DLR 9
Section 10(2)

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.

Abdul Hamid Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat 68 DLR 148
Section 10, 19, 41

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

Mosarrof Hosen and anr Vs. Artha Rin Adalat-1, Dhaka & ors 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 126
Sections 10 and 19(1)

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

ABSCO Limited -V s. -The Artha Rin Adalat No.2, Dhaka & another 4 ALR 2014(2) 326
Sections 10 and 19

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।

ABSCO Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat No.2, Dhaka 67 DLR 9.
Section 12

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

Hazrat Imam Sayeed Muhammad Dillur Rahman, Director -Vs- Artha Rin Adalat No.1, Dhaka and 11 (eleven) others 10 ALR (HCD) 187-191
Section 12

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

Tania Morshed -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others 12 ALR (HCD) 177-178
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

Gazipur Paperboard Limited - Vs. - Bangladesh Bank and others 8 ALR (HCD) 137-145
Sections 12, 44 and 57

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

M/S. Jimtaj Agro Food Products -Vs.- Janata Bank Limited 30 ALR (HCD) 286
Section 12(3)

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

Dr. Kazi Sirazul Islam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka and others 29 ALR (HCD) 59
Section 12(3)

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

Dr. Kazi Sirazul Islam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka and others 29 ALR (HCD) 59
Section 12(3)

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

Dr. Kazi Sirazul Islam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka and others 29 ALR (HCD) 59
Section 12(3)

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

Dr. Kazi Sirazul Islam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka and others 29 ALR (HCD) 59
Sections 12(3), 33(1) and 48

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

Md. Ali Haider Shah -Vs.-The Government of Bangladesh and others 30 ALR (HCD) 161
Sections 12(4), 33(1) and 48

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

Abul Khayer Mollah and others -Vs.- Agrani Bank Ltd 18 ALR (HCD) 372-374
Sections 12(6),33(1) and 48

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

Sree Proshanta Kumar Sarkar -Vs.- MD, Agrani Bank Ltd 3 ALR(2014)(1) 164
Section 12(8)

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

Sree Proshanta Kumar Sarkar -Vs.- MD, Agrani Bank Ltd 3 ALR(2014)(1) 164
Section 12

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.

Mamun-ur-Rashid (Md) vs Secretary, Ministry of Law 18 BLC 162
Sections 12, 46 and 57

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.

Shahabuddin Khan (Md) vs Bangladesh 14 BLC 111
Sections 12(1)(2)(3)(6) and 49

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.

AQM Shah Alam Chowdhury vs Bangladesh 13 BLC 122
Section 12(1)(2)(3)

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

AB Bank Limited vs Khan Enterprise 23 BLC 657
Sections 12(1)(2)(3)(4)(6)(7), 19 and 41

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.

KM Hamdor Rahman vs National Housing Finance & Investments Ltd 12 BLC 578
Section 12(1)(2)(3)

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.

Dr. Kazi Sirazul Islam vs Artha Rin Adalat 76 DLR 226
Section 12(1)(2)(3) and (6)

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.

Dr. Kazi Sirazul Islam vs Artha Rin Adalat 76 DLR 226
Section 12(3)

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.

Dr. Kazi Sirazul Islam vs Artha Rin Adalat 76 DLR 226
Section 12(3)

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.

Dr. Kazi Sirazul Islam vs Artha Rin Adalat 76 DLR 226
Section 12(2)

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.

Mohammad Ali vs Bangladesh Bank 20 BLC 512
Section 12(2)(3)

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.

Shakwat Hossain (Md) vs The Artha Rin Adalat No.2 Dhaka 19 BLC 74
Section 12(6)

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.

Sonali Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 18 BLC 743
Sections 12(6), 19, 20, 41 and 47

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.

Anisur Rahman @ KM Ziaul Haque vs Government of Bangladesh 12 BLC 22
Section 12(8)

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.

Rex Apparels (Private) Limited vs Bangladesh 21 BLC 395
Section 12

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.

A Hakim Gazi vs Md Nasiruddin, Assistant Vice President/Manager 67 DLR 218
Section 12

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.

Overseas Garments Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Bangladesh 57 DLR 168
Section 12

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.

Moniruzzaman (Md) vs Bangladesh 68 DLR 255
Sections 12 and 33(2)

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.

Ramjan Ali Tarafder (Md) vs Bangladesh 67 DLR 245
Sections 12(1) and (3)

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.

A Hakim Gazi vs Md Nasiruddin, Assistant Vice President/Manager 67 DLR 218
Sections 12(1)(2)(4) and 33

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.

Ramjan Ali Tarafder (Md) vs Bangladesh 67 DLR 245
Sections 12(1)(3)(8)

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.

A Hakim Gazi vs Md Nasiruddin, Assistant Vice President/ Manager 67 DLR 218
Sections 12(6), 33(1) and 48

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.

Proshanta Kumar Sarkar vs Managing Director, Agrani Bank Ltd 67 DLR 50
Sections 12(6) and 33(7)

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.

Mukleshur Rahman vs Artha Rin Adalat 68 DLR 205
Section 12(8)

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.

AM Mostafiz Meah vs United Commercial Bank Ltd 68 DLR 302
Section 12

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

Gazipur Paperboard Limited - Vs. - Bangladesh Bank and others 8 ALR (HCD) 137-145
Section 12

‘‘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

Mohammad Ali vs The State and others 26 ALR (HCD) 209
Section 12(7) read with Section 33(7)

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.

Md. Muklesur Rahman Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Ors 25BLT (HCD)357
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.

Prime Global Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat 11 BLC 236
Section 13(1) and 9(5)

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.

Md Arfan uddin Akanda vs Artha Rin Adalat, 15 15 BLT 345 343
Section 13(3)

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

BASIC Bank Ltd. Bogra Branch. -Vs.-M/S. Sarwar Enterprise and others 10 ALR (HCD) 3-6
Section 13(1)

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

Sankar Kumar Kundu vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 25 BLC 124
Section 13

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.

Prime Global Ltd. vs Joint District Judge and Lid Artha Rin Adalat No. 4, Dhaka 11 BLC 236
Section 13(3)

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.

Tajuddin (Md) vs Bangladesh 19 BLC 526
Section 13

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.

Md. Arfan Uddin Akand vs Artha Rin Adalat 15 BLT (2007) 343
Section 13(1)

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.

Md. Arfan Uddin Akand vs Artha Rin Adalat 15 BLT (2007) 343
Section 13(3)

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.

BASIC Bank Ltd VS Sarwar Enterprise 69 DLR 559
Section 13(4)

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.

Younus Bhuiyan vs Artha Rin Adalat 76 DLR 234
Sections 15, 33(1) and 48

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.

Salahuddin vs Government of Bangladesh 69 DLR 454
Sections 17(1)(2)

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.

Bangla­desh German Food (Pvt) Ltd vs Bangladesh 14 BLC 266
Section 17(1)(2)

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.

Jewel Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd vs Bangladesh 13 BLC 572
Section 18(1)

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

Kazi Mohammad Mofizur Rahman -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and others 15 ALR (HCD) 243-257
Section 18

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.

Oriental Bank Ltd vs Sitara Siddiq 59 DLR 573
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. Kazi Md Mofizur Rahman vs Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 24 BLC 431

Kazi Md Mofizur Rahman vs Artha Rin Adalat 24 BLC 431
Section 18

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.

M/s Brick Linkers Ltd vs Joint District Judge 15 BLT (2007) 99
Sections 18(2), 47 and 50(2)

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

Pubali Bank Ltd. Vs. M/S Amin Iqbal Corporation and others 1 LNJ 455
Section 19, 20, 41 and 42

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

Jafri Soap and Chemical Ind. & ors Vs. Agrani Bank & ors 5 SCOB [2015] HCD 79
Section 19(1)

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

Osman Gazi Chowdhury Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140
Section 19(1)

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

Osman Gazi Chowdhury Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140
Section 19(2)

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

Osman Gazi Chowdhury Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140
Section 19(6)

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

Osman Gazi Chowdhury Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140
Sections 19 and 42

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

Abdul Mannan Rauf (Md) vs Bangladesh 73 DLR 237
Section 19 (2)(3) & (4)

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

Dilruba Morshed (Mrs.) =VS= Artha Rin Adalat 4 LM (AD) 104
Section 19(2)

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

.Pubali Bank Ltd, Principal Branch, 26, Dilkusha C/A, Motijheel, Dhaka.-Vs.-The Government Bangladesh and others 4 ALR 2014(2) 341
Section 19

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.

Mohiuddin Mahmood vs Bangladesh 17 BLC 531
Sections 19 and 20

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.

Assistant Director, Agricultural Extension vs Sonali Bank 20 BLC 536
Sections 19 and 41

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.

Mohiuddin Mahmood Bangladesh 17 BLC 531
Section 19(1)

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.

Osman Gazi Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat 21 BLC 322
Section 19(1)

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.

Osman Gazi Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat 21 BLC 322
Section 19(2)

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.

Osman Gazi Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat 21 BLC 322
Section 19(2)

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.

Dilruba Morshed vs Artha Rin Adalat 17 BLC 98
Section 19(2)

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

Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited vs Al-Mozadded Shipping Lines Co. 24 BLC 231
Section 19

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

Prime Global Ltd vs Artha Ain Adalat 65 DLR 205
Sections 19 and 33(7)

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.

Azizur Rahman (Md) vs Bangladesh 65 DLR 31
Section 19

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

Mizanur Rahman (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat 71 DLR 454
Section 19(1)

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.

Sonali Bank Limited vs Prime Global Limited 63 DLR (AD) 99
Section 19(1)

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.

Enayetur Rahman vs Bangladesh 64 DLR 116
Section 19(1)

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

Mosarrof Hosen vs Artha Rin Adalat 76 DLR 30
Section 19(2)

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.

Pubali Bank Ltd vs Bangladesh 66 DLR 317
Sections 19(2)(3)

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.

Pubali Bank Ltd vs Bangladesh 66 DLR 317
Sections 19(3)(4)

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.

Bangladesh Development Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 66 DLR 1
Sections 19(3) and 34(6)

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

Mizanur Rahman (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat 71 DLR DLR 454
Sections 19(3), 32, 41 and 42

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

Atiqun Nessa vs Government of Bangladesh 74 DLR 204
Section 19(4)

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.

Bangladesh Development Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 66 DLR 1
Section-19(2)

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.

Islami Bank Bd. Ltd. Ors Vs. Al-Mozadded Shipping Lines Co. & Ors 27BLT(HCD)365
Sections 19 and 20

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

Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd. VS Mr. Md. Salauddin and others 1 LNJ 1
Section 19

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

Faizun Nabi Chowdhury -Vs.- The Judge Artharin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka and others 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 115
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.

Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd vs Md. Salauddin 16 BLC 277
Section 20

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

Jafri Soap and Chemical Ind. & ors Vs. Agrani Bank & ors 5 SCOB [2015] HCD 79
Section 20, 33(7), 57

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

City Bank Ltd Vs. Court of 1st JDJ & Artha Rin Adalat & anr 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 217
Section 20

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.

55 DLR 585
Section 20

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

Jafri Soap and Chemical Industries vs Agrani Bank 69 DLR 146
Section 20

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.

Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd vs Md. Salauddin 16 BLC 277
Sections 20 and 19

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.

Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd vs Md. Salauddin 16 BLC 277
Sections 20 and 41

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.

Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd vs Md. Salauddin 16 BLC 293
Sections 20

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.

Rowshan Ara Begum vs Rupali Bank Ltd 68 DLR 265
Sections 20

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.

Md. Arfanuddin Akanda vs. Artha Rin Adalat 15 BLT 343
Sections 20

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

Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd. VS Mr. Md. Salauddin and others 1 LNJ 1
Sections 20 and 41

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

Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd. VS Mr. Md. Salauddin and others 1 LNJ 1
Sections 21 and 22

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

Rana Appearels Ltd. vs. Bangladesh 15 BLT 104
Section 21

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.

Sekander Ali vs. Md. Seraj Mia 60 DLR 154
Section 21

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.

Rana Appearels Ltd. vs Bangladesh 15 BLT 104
Sections 21—25, 38 and 45

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.

Mirzaboo Steels Ltd vs Government of Bangladesh 59 DLR 141
Sections 22, 23 & 24

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

Md. Ferdous Khan Alamgir & Ors Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Ctg 22 BLT (HCD)317
Sections 22 and 38

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

Sonali Bank Ltd. -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 1 5 ALR (HCD)2015(1) 204
Section 22

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

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 11 ALR (HCD) 132-134
Sections 22, 38, 45, 49 and 57

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

Sree Proshanta Kumar Sarkar -Vs.- MD, Agrani Bank Ltd. 3 ALR(2014)(1) 175
Section 22

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

Md. Rawshan Ali Sarker -Vs.-Bangladesh and others 21 ALR (HCD) 168-171
Section 22 (4)

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

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 12 ALR (HCD) 34-37
Section 22

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.

Rawshan Ali Sarker vs Bangladesh 26 BLC 693
Section 22 and 24

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.

Mohammad Ali vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 19 BLC 356
Section 22(4)

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

Mohammad Ali vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong 24 BLC 89
Section 22 read with Section 23

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

Md. Ferdous Khan Alamgir & Ors Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 22 BLT (HCD) 317
Section 26

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.

Bodiuzzaman Milan vs Bangladesh Commerce Bank Limited 17 BLC 426
Sections 26 and 27 (1)

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

Md. Rafiul Alam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and 2(two) others 9 ALR (HCD) 277-282
Section 26

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

Abdul Mannan Rauf (Md) vs Bangladesh 73 DLR 237
Section 26

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

Mosharef Hossain (Md) vs Bangladesh 65 DLR 81
Section 26

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.

Bodiuzzaman Milon vs Bangladesh Commerce Bank Limited 17 BLC 426
Section 26

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.

Rafia Ashraf Polly vs Government of Bangladesh 19 BLC 546
Section 26

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.

IFIC Bank Limited Vs. Marinar Fashions Wear Pvt 15 BLT 425
Sections 26 and 33(4)(5)(7)(9)

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.

IFIC Bank Limited Vs. Marinar Fashions Wear Pvt 12 BLC 723
Section 27(1)

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

Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd vs Janata Bank 11 BLC 186
Sections 27 and 33(1)

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

Md. Rafiul Alam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and 2 (two) others 9 ALR (HCD) 277-282
Section 27

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

Agrani Bank Limited -Vs.- The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and others 18 ALR (HCD) 285-293
Sections 27 and 33(1)

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

Md. Rafiul Alam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and 2 (two) others 277-282
Sections 27 and 30

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.

Rahima Auto Rice Mills vs Manager, Pubali Bank Ltd 60 DLR 313
Section 27

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

Anowar Mirza vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 72 DLR 216
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. .....Agrani Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat (Spl Original) 27 BLC 10

Agrani Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 27 BLC 10
Section 27(1)

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.

Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd vs Janata Bank 11 BLC 186
Section 27(1)

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.

Gulshana Ara Begum vs Judge Artha Rin Adalat No. 1 Dhaka 70 DLR 230
Section 27(1)(3)

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

Metalex Corporation Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 2, Dhaka 25 BLC 526
Section 27(2)

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.

Gulshana Ara Begum vs Judge Artha Rin Adalat No. 1 70 DLR 230
Section 27(1) read with Section 33(7)

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

Mrs. Khazeda Bagum Vs. Shahjalal Islami Bank Ltd. & Anr 24BLT (HCD)290
Sections 28 and 60

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

Uttara Bank Ltd vs Md Nazir Uddin 71 DLR 158
Section 28(1)

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.

Mostafa Ahmed vs Government of Bangladesh 65 DLR 294
Sections 28(1), (2), (3) and (4)

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.

Birendra Nath Roy vs Rupali Bank Ltd 18 BLC 118
Section 28(2)

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.

Momin Automatic Rice Mills Limited vs Bangladesh Shilpa Bank 17 BLC 337
Section 28(3)

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.

Janata Bank Ltd vs Bangladesh, Secretary Ministry, of Finance and planning 20 BLC 751
Section 28(3)(4)

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.

Iftekhar Uddin Ahmed vs Artha Rin Adalat 17 BLC 220
Sections 28(3), 37 and 60(3)

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.

Khurshid Alam (Md) vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat-1 12 BLC 592
Section-28(3)

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

Abdul Motaleb Howlader Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Ors 22 BLT (HCD)119
Section 28(4) read with Section 48

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

M Abdul Barkat Mollah Shamsud Doulah Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Ors 24BLT (HCD) 277
Section 28(4) read with Section 60(3)

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

Uttara Bank Ltd. Vs. Md. Nazir Uddin & Anr 27BLT(HCD)23
Sections 28(3), 37 and 60(3)

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

Khurshid Alam (Md) vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 12 BLC 592
Section 28

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

Kazi Monirul Haque Vs. Bangladesh & ors 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 15
Section 28

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

Dewan Ruhul Amin Vs.- The Artha Rin (Mahmudul Hoque J) 6 ALR - 2015(2)97
Sections 28 and 41

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

Anwar Hossain. -Vs.- Bangladesh, and others 30 ALR (HCD) 124
Section 28(1)

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

Pubali Bank Limited -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Khulna and others 15 ALR (HCD) 270-272
Section 28(3)

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

Sekerder Ali Miah -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat 3 ALR(2014)(1) 285
Section 28(3) and (4)

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.

Sonali Bank Limited –Vs.- M/S Asha Textile 30 ALR (HCD) 45
Section 28

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.

Shitalakhaya Ice and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat 64 DLR 487
Section 28

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.

A.B.M. Ashrafullah vs Bangladesh 17 BLT 343
Section 28

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.

Habib Bank Limited vs UAE Bangladesh Investment Company Limited 52 DLR 25
Section 28(1)

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.

FR Garments (Pvt) Ltd. vs Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka 61 DLR 296
Section 29

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.

Dr Md Asadullah vs Sonali Bank Ltd 62 DLR 474
Section 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 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

Abu Musa (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat Chittagong 23 BLC 122
Section 30

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.

Rahima Auto Rice Mills vs. Manager, Pubali Bank Ltd 60 DLR 313
Sections 30 and 34(1)

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.

Abdul Jalil (Md) vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 2nd Court, Dhaka 67 DLR 575
Section 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. .....Ali Ajgar vs Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Finance, 69 DLR 505.

Ali Ajgar vs Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Finance 69 DLR 505
Sections 30(1) and 33(5)(6)

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.

Wadud Sheikh (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat 20 BLC 398
Sections 30

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

Md. Ali Ajgar -Vs.- Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh & others 13 ALR (HCD) 9-13
Sections 31 and 41

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.

Sonali Bank Limited vs Asha Tex International 20 BLC 185
Section 31

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.

MAC vs Agrani Bank 47 DLR 233
Sections 31, 41 and 44

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.

Sonali Bank Ltd vs Asha Tex International 20 BLC 185
Section 32

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.

Sanaullah vs Government of Bangladesh 17 BLC 481
Section 32

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.

Shamsuddin Ahmed vs City Bank Ltd 18 BLC 30
Section 32

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.

Janata Bank vs Md Sekandar 18 BLC 793
Section 32

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.

Rowshan Ara Begum vs Rupali Bank Ltd 68 DLR 265
Section 32

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.

Promoda Sundari Sen Kalyan Trust, Rangpur vs Momtaz Zafar Ahmed 68 DLR 53
Sections 32 and 33(7)

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.

Dr Md Habibuzzaman Chowdhury vs Bangladesh 64 DLR 281
Section 32

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

Standard Bank Ltd vs Court of the Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat 74 DLR 250
Sections 32 and 57

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

Standard Bank Ltd vs Court of the Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat 74 DLR 250
Sections 32(1) and 32(4)

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

Atiqun Nessa vs Government of Bangladesh 74 DLR 204
Section 32(2)

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.

Rupali Bank Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat Chittagong 69 DLR 178
Section 32(2)

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.

Rupali Bank Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat Chittagong 69 DLR 178
Section 32(2)

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.

Mollah Shahidul Islam vs Md Monsur Rahman 57 DLR 164
Section 32(2)

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.

Saiful Islam (Md) vs Bangladesh 17 BLC 558
Section 32(2)

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.

Rashida Mahabub vs IFIC Bank Ltd 13 BLC 78
Section 32(2)

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

Atiqun Nessa vs Government of Bangladesh 74 DLR 204
Sections 32(2) & 43

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

Md. Humayun Kabir Vs. Sonali Bank Limited 22 BLT (HCD)307
Section 33

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

Kazi Monirul Haque Vs. Bangladesh & ors 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 15
Section 33

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

M. A. Hashem Vs. Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka & ors 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 19
Section 33

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

Zodiac Sweaters Ltd.-Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, No. 3 5 ALR (HCD)2015(1) 316
Section 33(1) and 33 (4)

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

City Bank Ltd Vs. Court of 1st JDJ & Artha Rin Adalat & anr 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 217
Section 33

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

Md. Rafiul Alam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and 2(two) others 9 ALR (HCD) 277-282
Section 33

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

City Bank Ltd Vs. Court of 1st JDJ & Artha Rin Adalat & anr 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 217
Section 33(1)

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

Md. Rafiul Alam -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and 2 (two) others 9 ALR (HCD) 277-282
Sections 33, 28, 5(3), 58

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

City Bank Ltd Vs. Court of 1st JDJ & Artha Rin Adalat & anr 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 217
Section 33(2)

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

Agrani Bank Ltd. -Vs.-Ministry of law, and others 21 ALR (HCD) 85-89
Section 33(2)

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

M. A. Hashem son of late Addul Aziz -Vs.- The Artha Rin Adalat No. 2, Dhaka and others 19 ALR (HCD) 225-236
Sections 33(5) and 33(7)

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

Nahar Enterprise -Vs.-Artha RinAdalat No. 3, Dhaka and others 4 ALR 2014(2) 363
Sections 33(5) and 33(7)

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

Md. A.B. Mannaf Sheikh -Vs.- District Judge Court, Faridpur 3 ALR(2014)(1) 175
Section 33(5), (7)

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

Bank Asia Limited -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram and others 15 ALR (HCD) 130-133
Sections 33(6kha) and 33(7)

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

Nahar Enterprise -Vs.-Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka and others 4 ALR 2014(2) 363
Section 33 (7Ka) and 33 (7Kha)

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

Khan A Sobur Trust -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka and others 4 ALR 2014(2) 144
Sections 33(7Ka)

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

Khan A Sobur Trust -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka and others 4 ALR 2014(2) 144
Section 33(7Kha)

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

Khan A Sobur Trust -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka and others 4 ALR 2014(2) 144
Section 33 (7)

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

Agrani Bank Limited -Vs.- The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 1st Court, Dhaka and others 18 ALR (HCD) 285-293
Section 33

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.

Nitai Kumar Mondol vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 62 DLR, 446
Sections 33 and 34

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.

Nitai Kumar Mondol vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 62 DLR 446
Sections 33 and 34

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.

Provat Kumar Das vs Agrani Bank 15 BLC 180
Sections 33, 34(1)(9) and (10)

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.

Abdul Kader vs Government of Bangladesh 69 DLR 304
Sections 33, 38 and 49

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.

Quayyaim Steel Mills Ltd vs Pubali Bank 13 BLC 334
Section 33

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

AB Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 75 DLR 644
Section 33

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.

Salahuddin vs Government of Bangladesh 69 DLR 454
Section 33

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.

Swadesh Poultry vs Bangladesh Krishi Bank 70 DLR 77
Section 33(1)

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.

Afifa Sultana vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 63 DLR 354
Sections 33(1)(2)(3)(4) and (5)

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.

Udayan Garments (Pvt) Ltd vs Bangladesh 59 DLR 615
Section 33(1)(7)

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.

Agrani Bank Ltd vs Secretary, Ministry of law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs 20 BLC 329
Sections 33(1) and 48

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.

Abdul Monayem Lili vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 67 DLR 358
Sections 33(5) and 34

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.

Syed Monjur Morshed vs Manager, Agrani Bank Ltd 14 BLC 107, 501
Sections 33(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(7)(8)

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.

Atiqullah vs Artha Rin Adalat 16 BLC 486
Section 33(2)

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

Jubak Housing and Real Estate Development Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka 23 BLC 186
Section 33(2ga)

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.

Dutch Bangla Bank Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat 68 DLR 340
Section 33(4)

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.

Shamsunnahar vs Bangladesh 19 BLC 67
Section 33(4)(5)(7)

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.

Mosharaf Hossain (Md) vs Bangladesh 67 DLR 199
Section 33(5)

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.

Salma Begum vs Sonali Bank Limited 63 DLR 282
Section 33(5)

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.

ABC Attire Ltd vs Bangladesh 64 DLR 399
Section 33(5)

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.

Salma Begum vs Sonali Bank Limited 63 DLR 282
Section 33(5)

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.

ABC Attire Ltd. vs Bangladesh 64 DLR 399
Section 33(5)

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

Sanjida Sarmin vs Kazi Zahid Hossain 23 BLC 927
Section 33(5)(9)

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.

Sheuly Khanam vs Artha Rin Adalat, 2nd Court, Dhaka 17 BLC 579
Section 33(5)

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

Rupali Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No.4, Dhaka 24 BLC 604
Section 33(5)

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

South-East Bank Limited vs Md ASM Rubaiyat Forman 27 BLC 447
Section 33(5)(6Ka)

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

Mehmood Alam Nadim vs Artha Rin Adalat 28 BLC 538
Section 33(6)

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.

Birendra Nath Roy vs Rupali Bank Ltd 18 BLC 118
Section 33(6)

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.

Birendra Nath Roy vs Rupali Bank Ltd 18 BLC 118
Section 33(6)(Kha)(7)

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.

Mosharaf Hossain (Md) vs Bangladesh 67 DLR 199
Section 33(7)

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.

Setara Begum vs Al-Arafah Islami Bank Ltd 61 DLR 791
Section 33(7)

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.

World Resources Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka 66 DLR 637
Section 33(7)

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.

Mosharaf Hossain (Md) vs Bangladesh 67 DLR 199
Section 33(7)

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.

Rokaiya Amin vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Finance Division, Ministry of Finance 67 DLR 545
Section 33(7)

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.

Atiqullah vs Artha Rin Adalat 16 BLC 489
Section 33(7)

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.

Dr Md Habibuzzaman Chowdhury vs Bangladesh 64 DLR 281
Section 33(7)

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.

IFIC Bank vs Merina Fashions 15 BLT 425
Sections 33(7)(ka) and 7(kha)

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

Bartk Asia Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram 71 DLR 338
Section 33(7)

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

Asraful Alam (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh 74 DLR 126
Section 33(7)

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

Saboj Traders vs Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat 24 BLC 769
Section 33(7)

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

Agrani Bank Limited vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 27 BLC 10
Section 33(7ka)

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.

Enayet Hossain vs Artha Rin Adalat 29 BLC 74
Section 33(9)

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

Farzana Amin vs Government of People's Republic of Bangladesh 72 DLR 326
Section 33(7)

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

Mrs. Khazeda Bagum Vs. Shahjalal Islami Bank Ltd. & Anr 24BLT (HCD)290
Section 33(7)(Kha)

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

Aminullah & Ors Vs Al-Arafah Islami Bank Itd. & Ors 27BLT(HCD)281
Section 33(1)(2)

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

Babul Chandra Sheel Vs. Rupali Bank Ltd and others 2 LNJ 433
Section 33(1)

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

Salahuddin and others -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 131
Section 33(1)

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

Salahuddin and others -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 131
Section 34

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

Iqbal Mahmud and others. -Vs.- Agrani Bank Limited and others 26 ALR (HCD) 42
Section 34(1)

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

M/S Anika Agro Farming Complex -Vs.- Ministry of Law, and others 23 ALR (HCD) 16
Section 34(1)

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

Md. Ohiduzzaman Mia alias Mukul Mia -Vs.- Government 2 ALR (2013)(HCD) 117
Section 34(1)

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

Md. Jahirul Hoque -Vs- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram and others 27 ALR (HCD) 150
Section 34(9)

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

A.B.M. Liton -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh 3ALR(2014)(1) 238
Sections 34(9) and 36

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

Md. Abdul Jalil & others -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 2nd Court, Dhaka, & another 8 ALR (HCD) 101-104
Sections 34(9) and 36

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

Md. Abdul Jalil & others -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 2nd Court, Dhaka, & another 8 ALR (HCD) 101-104
Section 34

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.

Sheikh Nazmul Haque vs Bangladesh 14 BLC 107
Section 34

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.

ABM Shirajum Monir vs Subordinate Judge 14 BLC 716
Section 34

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.

Ziaul Huq vs Artha Rin Adalat 14 BLC 809
Section 34

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.

Sujit Kumar Mondal vs Bangladesh 13 BLC 391
Section 34

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.

Jahangir Chowdhury vs Artha Rin Adalat 61 DLR 167
Section 34

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.

Kanika Begum vs Artha Rin Adalat 64 DLR 276
Section 34

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.

Mostafa Ahmed vs Government of Bangladesh 65 DLR 294
Section 34

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.

Mirza Ahsan Habib vs The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 65 DLR 579
Section 34

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.

Mostafa Ahmed vs Government of Bangladesh 65 DLR 294
Section 34

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.

Nitai Kumar Mondol vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 62 DLR 446
Section 34

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.

Aleya Begum vs Artha Rin Adalat 76 DLR 291
Section 34

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.

Manik K Bhattacherjee vs Artha Rin Adalat 16 BLC 195
Sections 34 and 44

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.

Syed Monjur Morshed vs Manager, Agrani Bank Ltd 14 BLC 501
Section 34

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.

s 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
Section 34

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

Janata Bank Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat 71 DLR 487
Sections 34(1) & 34(5)

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

Janata Bank Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat 71 DLR 487
Section 34(1)

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.

Technomech Engineering (Pvt) Ltd vs Judge, Artha Rin Court No.2, Dhaka 18 BLC 798
Section 34(1)

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.

Abdul Jalil (Md) vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 2nd Court, Dhaka 67 DLR 475
Section 34(1)

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.

Golam Haider vs Bangladesh 15 BLC 831
Section 34(1)

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.

Manik K Bhattacherjee vs Artha Rin Adalat 16 BLC 195
Section 34(1)

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.

Bashir Ullah Master vs Bangladesh 61 DLR 760
Section 34(1)

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.

Ziaur Rahman (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat 64 DLR 189
Section 34(1)

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.

AKM Tofazzel Hossain vs Rupali Bank Ltd 64 DLR 435
Section 34(1)

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.

Marzan Abedin vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 4 Dhaka 65 DLR 79
Section 34(1)

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.

Mohammad Saheed vs Government of Bangladesh 66 DLR 254
Section 34(1)

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.

AKM Tofazzel Hossain vs Rupali Bank Ltd 64 DLR 435
Section 34(1)

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.

Marzan Abedin vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 4 Dhaka 65 DLR 79
Section 34(1)

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.

Bodiuzzaman Milan (Md) vs BCB Limited 18 MLR 137 = 17 BLC 426
Section 34(1)

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.

Marzan Abedin vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 4 Dhaka 65 DLR 79
Section 34(1)

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.

MA Jaher vs Sonali Bank 13 MLR 64
Section 34(2)

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.

Akramuzzaman (Md) alias Babu vs Artha Rin Adalat No. 1 Rajbari 61 DLR 638
Section 34(9)

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.

ABM Liton vs Bangladesh 66 DLR 207
Section 34(9)

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.

Ali Ajgar vs Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Finance 69 DLR 505
Section 34(9)(10)

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

Abdul Hafiz Salawat vs First Court of Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong 23 BLC 260
Section 34(10)

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

Abu Musa (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat Chittagong 23 BLC 122
Section 34(10)

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

Abdul Hafiz Salawat vs First Court of Artha Rin Adalat 23 BLC 260
Section 34(12)

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.

Osarunnessa vs Bangladesh 64 DLR 417
Sections 34 and 44(2)

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

Md. Bodiuzzaman Milon and another Vs. Bangladesh Commerce Bank Limited and others 2 LNJ 104
Section 34

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

Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20
Section 34(1)

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

Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20
Section 34

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

Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20
Section 34

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

Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20
Sections 34, 44(2)

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

Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20
Section 34 (1)

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

Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20
Sections 37 and 49

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.

Monwar Hossain vs Government of Bangladesh 13 BLC 181
Sections 37 and 38

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

Dilara Begum vs Artha Rin Adalat 75 DLR 267
Section 37

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.

Abul Basher vs 1st Artha Rin Adalat 13 MLR 208
Section 37

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.

Sujit Kumar Mondal vs Bangladesh 13 BLC 391
Sections 37 and 49

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.

Monwar Hossain (Md) vs Government of bangladesh 13 BLC 181
Section 37

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.

Kanak Rani Roy vs Bangladesh 65 DLR 364
Section 37

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.

Kanak Rani Roy vs Bangladesh 65 DLR 364
Section 38 and 45

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

M. A. Hashem Vs. Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka & ors 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 19
Sections 38, 45, 49 and 57

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

Md. A.B. Mannaf Sheikh -Vs.- District Judge Court 3 ALR(2014)(1) 175
Sections 38 and 45

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

M. A. Hashem son of late Addul Aziz -Vs.- The Artha Rin Adalat No. 2, Dhaka and others 19 ALR (HCD) 225-236
Sections 38 & 44

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

Md. Abdul Mannan Rouf vs The State 19 ALR (HCD) 268-274
Section 38

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

Sonali BankLtd. -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, No.-1 5 ALR (HCD)2015(1) 204
Section 38

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

Sonali BankLtd. -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, No.-1 5 ALR (HCD)2015(1) 381
Sections 38 and 45

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

Sonali Bank Limited, Head Office Motijheel Commercial Area -Vs.- Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Shahbagh, Dhaka 9 ALR (HCD) 14-18
Sections 38, 45, 49 and 57

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.

AB Mannaf Sheikh (Md) vs 1st Joint District Judge Court and Artha Rin Adalat 19 BLC 493
Section 38

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.

ABC Attire Lid vs. Bangladesh 64 DLR 399
Sections 38 and 45

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.

Khadiza Begum vs Shahjalal Islami Bank Ltd 67 DLR 583
Section 41

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

Osman Gazi Chowdhury Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140
Section 41

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

Osman Gazi Chowdhury Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140
Section 41

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

Md. Abdul Mannan Rouf vs The State 19 ALR (HCD) 268-274
Section 41

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

Abdul Mannan Rauf (Md) vs Bangladesh (Spl Original), 73 DLR 237 73 DLR 237
Section 41

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.

Edruk Ltd vs Secretary Ministry of Industries 14 BLC 102
Section 41

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.

United Food Complex Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat 15 BLC 489
Section 41

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.

Rupali Bank Ltd vs Sheuli Akter Moni 17 BLC 476
Section 41

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.

Rupali Bank Lid vs Md. Hamayer Uddin 17 BLT 60
Sections 41 and 4(7)

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.

Sheikh Md Rafiqul Islam (Babul) vs Manager, Uttara Bank Limited 66 DLR 131
Sections 41 and 44

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

Sheikh Fariduddin (Md) vs Sonali Bank, Barisal 71 DLR 25
Section 41(1)(2)

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

Shamsul Alam (Md) vs Md Liyakat Ullah 72 DLR 17
Section 41(2)

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.

Sonali Food Products (Pvt) Ltd vs Premier Bank Ltd 17 BLC 441
Section 41(2)

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.

Anisur Rahman @ KM Ziaul Haque vs Government of Bangladesh 12 BLC 22
Section 41(2)

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.

Anisur Rahman @ KM Ziaul Haque vs Government 12 MLR 75 = 11 BLC 22.
Sections 41(2)(3), 44(2)

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.

Sonali Bank Limited vs Asha Tex International, 20 BLC 185
Section 41 & 44

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

Md. Sheikh Fariduddin Vs. Sonali Bank, Barishal & Ors 27BLT(HCD)372
Section 41

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

Faizun Nabi Chowdhury -Vs.- The Judge Artharin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka and others 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 115
Sections 42 and 44

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.

Mahbubur Rahman vs District Judge, Bogra 17 BLC 601
Section 42(2)(a)

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.

Janata Bank vs Mohiuddin Textile 62 DLR 501
Section 44

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.

Trade Multi Plex vs Artha Rin Adalat 62 DLR 533
Section 44

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

Hasan Traders vs Janata Bank Ltd 76 DLR 153
Section 44(2)

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.

Sonali Bank Limited vs Asha Tex International 20 BLC 185
Section 45

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.

Enayet Hossain vs Artha Rin Adalat 29 BLC 74
Section 46

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

Kazi Mohammad Mofizur Rahman -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and others 15 ALR (HCD) 243-257
Section 46 (5)

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

Kazi Mohammad Mofizur Rahman -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and others 15 ALR (HCD) 243-257
Section 46 (1)

(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.

Kazi Mohammad Mofizur Rahman -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and others 15 ALR (HCD) 243-257
Section 46 (1) (Ka)

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

Kazi Mohammad Mofizur Rahman -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat and others 15 ALR (HCD) 243-257
Section 46

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.

Shahabuddin Khan vs Bangladesh 14 BLC 111
Section 46(5)

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.

Shitalakhaya Ice and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat 64 DLR 487
Sections 47 and 60

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.

Humayun Hossain Khan vs Bangladesh 61 DLR 513
Section 47

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

Sonali Bank Ltd. -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 5 ALR (HCD)2015(1) 204
Section 47

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

Sonali Bank Ltd -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, No1 5 ALR (HCD)2015(1) 381
Section 47

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

M/s Nobel Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. -Vs.- Bangladesh and others 29 ALR (HCD) 91
Sections 47 and 50(2)

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.

Pubali Bank Ltd vs Amin Iqbal Corporation 17 BLC 500
Section 47

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.

Pubali Bank Ltd vs Farzana Begum 15 BLC 49
Section 47

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.

Sonali Bank vs Md Lutfor Rahman 21 BLC 198
Section 47

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.

Humayun Hossain Khan vs. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh 61 DLR 513
Section 48

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.

Abdul Monayem Lili vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 67 DLR 358
Section 48

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

Salahuddin and others -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 131
Section 49

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.

Shiekh Shahidul Islam vs Joint District Judge 15 BLT 326
Section 49

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.

Shiekh Shahidul Islam vs Joint District Judge 15 BLT 326
Section 49(3)

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

Md. Shamsul Alam Talukder Vs Bangladesh & Ors 16 BLT (HCD) 440
Section 50

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

Md. Aminul Islam -Vs.- Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation 9 ALR (HCD) 140-143
Section 50

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

Agrani Bank Limited -Vs.- M/S. Vanguard Steels Limited 18 ALR (HCD) 294-299
Section 50

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.

Sonali Bank vs Md Lutfor Rahman 21 BLC 198
Sections 50 and 60

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.

Janata Bank vs Betka Poultry and Dairy Complex 16 BLC 665
Section 50

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

AB Bank Limited vs Khan Enterprise 23 BLC 657
Section 50

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.

Islamic Bank Ltd. vs Sohag Medicine 2001 BLD 1 = 52 DLR 571
Section 50

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

Agrani Bank Limited vs Vanguard Steels Limited 73 DLR 580
Section 50(2)

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.

Abdul Mannan @Rouf vs Bangladesh 17 BLC 350
Section 50(4)

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.

Topman Fashion Wears Limited vs Dutch Bangla Bank Limited 70 DLR 487
Section 50(4)

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.

Topman Fashion Wears Limited vs Dutch Bangla Bank Limited 70 DLR 487
Section 50

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

M/S Rajib Traders Vs. Artha Rin Adalat, Jessore and another 5(1)LNJ 168
Section 50

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

Sonali Bank Vs. Md. Abu Baker Sarker 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 156
Section 52

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.

City Bank Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat 26 BLC 601
Section 52

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

City Bank Ltd Vs. Court of 1st JDJ & Artha Rin Adalat & anr 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 217
Section 57

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

Md. Rukunuddin Mollah -VS.- Artha Rin Adalat 6 ALR - 2015(2)25
Section 57

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

Khan A Sobur Trust -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka and others 4 ALR 2014(2) 144
Section 57

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

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
Section 57

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

Messrs World Resources Limited -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat No. 3 3 ALR(2014)(1) 446
Section 57

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

Sonali Bank Limited, Head Office Motijheel Commercial Area, represented by its Manager, Sonali Bank Limited, District-Chittagong. -Vs.- Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Shahbagh, Dhaka 9 ALR (HCD) 14-18
Section 57

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

Mohammad Ali Proprietor of M/S. Imam Motors Son of late Badiur District Chittagong -Vs.- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong and others 12 ALR (HCD) 34-37
Section 57

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

Mahbub Minhaj -Vs.- Artha Rin Adalat 3rd Court, Dhaka 19 ALR (HCD) 45-47
Section 57

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

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 17 ALR (HCD) 29-33
Section 57

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.

Shamsuddin Ahmed vs City Bank Ltd 18 BLC 30
Section 57

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.

AB Mannaf Sheikh vs 1st Joint District Judge Court and Artha Rin Adalat 19 BLC 493
Section 57

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

Ali Imam Vs. The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat & ors 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 76
Section 57

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

Ali Imam Vs. The Judge, Artha Rin Adalat & ors 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 76
Section 57

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

AB Bank Limited vs Khan Enterprise 23 BLC 657
Section 57

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

Reliance Finance Limited vs Judge Artha Rin Adalat No. 4 Dhaka 23 BLC 944
Section 57

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

Mohammad Ali vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong 24 BLC 89
Section 57

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

Rashida Yasmin vs Bangladesh, Secretary Minister of Law 25 BLC 212
Section 57

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

South-East Bank Limited vs Md ASM Rubaiyat Forman 27 BLC 447
Section 57

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

Suruj Molla (Md) vs Artha Rin Adalat 27 BLC 743
Section 57

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

Elited Iron and Steel GP Sheet Limited vs Artha Rin Adalat 28 BLC 781
Section 57

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.

Hubble Corporate Ltd vs Artha Rin Adalat 64 DLR 86
Section 57

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.

Doel Apparels Ltd vs Judge Artha Rin Adalat 66 DLR 341
Section 57

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.

Rokaiya Amin vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Finance Division, Ministry of Finance 67 DLR 545
Section 57

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.

Jafrul Islam vs Bangladesh 68 DLR 323
Section 57

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

Rizwan Ahmed vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat 72 DLR 397
Section 57

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

Monnujan Begum Ruby vs Artha Rin Adalat 73 DLR 492
Section 57

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

Osman Gazi Chowdhury Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & anr 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 140
Section 57

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

M Abdul Barkat Mollah Shamsud Doulah Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Ors 24BLT (HCD)277
Sections 60 and 47

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.

Humayun Hossain Khan vs Bangladesh 61 DLR 513
Section 60(1)(3)

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.

Udayan Garments (Pvt) Ltd vs Bangladesh 59 DLR 615
Section 60(3)

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.

Angels Corporation (Pvt) Ltd vs Bangladesh 59 DLR 601
Section 60(3)

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.

Mofiz Mia vs Artha Rin Adalat 60 DLR 417
Section 60(3)

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.

Kazi Masudur Rahman vs Artha Rin Adalat 60 DLR 679
Section 60(3)

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.

Zahidi Millah vs Artha Rin Adalat, Khulna 11 BLC 238
Section 60(3)

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.

Mofiz Mia vs Artha Rin Adalat 13 BLC 444