সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990
Section 2 (Kha) read with
Contract Act, 1872
Section 72-The definition 'ঋণ' it clearly indicates that any financial advantage or facilities taken in whatever name this may be termed and comes within the definition of "ঋণ".
The High Court Division is meticulously gone through all the provisions of the Contract Act and Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 and evidence and materials on record, the High Court Division finds that the learned Joint District Judge totally misconstrued Exhibit No. 5 and misconceived the relevant provision of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 and Contract Act and accordingly erroneously dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the suit is decreed without any cost. The defendant respondent no. 1 is directed to pay the amount of Taka 5,00,000.00 (Taka five lac) to the plaintiff Bank without any interest within a period of 3 (three) months in default the defendant will pay a simple interest at the rate of 9% percent perannum from this date to the date of realisation. Arab Bangladesh Bank Limited -Vs. Mr. Golam Mostafa (Motin) (Civil) 18 ALR (HCD) 182-186
S. 2(Kha) & 5(1)-Artha Rin Adalat, 1990.
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. Puhali Bank Lid Vs Md Mamunur Rahman 54 DLR (2002)-HCD-458
Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990; Section 5(4) read with Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 48 read with Limitation Act, 1908;
Section 15 with Article 182(2)
Held: application for execution of a final decree or order is to be made within 3(three) years from the date mentioned in 2nd column of Article 182 of the Limitation Act subject to some exceptions as detailed in the 3rd column read with provisions of Section 15 of the Act inasmuch as Article 182 makes no provisions for fresh limitation from a final order passed on an application under order IX rule 13 of the code. In other words if no stay order or injunction is passed staying the operation of the decree or order under Section 15 or no situation arises as per the 3 Column of Article 182 the decree or order would keep open for execution and time would run from the date of final decree or order. A bare reading of Article 182 of the Limitation. Act also suggests that an application under order IX rule 13 of the code does not come within the meaning of applications mentioned in clause 5 of Column 3 of Article 182 of the Limitation Act to save limitation Accordingly, pendency of a case under order IX rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside an ex-parte decree cannot extend the period of limitation for filing execution case. Md. Mohitur Rahman Choudhury vs. Ma. Abdul Kuddus Miah &-ors 25 BLT (2017)-HCD-399
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-Bunk 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, morcover, 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 25 BLT (2017)-HCD-222
Sections 5(4), 5(5) and 6(ka)
Since section 5(4) and (5) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 has clothed the Artha Rin Adalat with the power to exercise its jurisdiction as Civil Court following the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure insofar as it is not inconsistent with any provision of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, the legislature was required to make express provision in section 6(ka) to exclude the operation of section 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it was not done so. Section 6(ka)(a) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 can not, therefore, be construed to exclude the operation of section 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure in matters of execution of any decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat. Hazera Begum Vs. Artha Rin Adalat (Civil). 12 BLC (2007)-AD-153.
See BSCD Vol. X-2007 Page-8.
Section 5
The Artha Rin Adalat Act, 1990 to be a special procedural law rather than a substantive law affecting the rights of the parties. It was submitted that where par- ties have agreed that a foreign law gov- erns a dispute, capacity to sue is governed either by the law of the domicile of the plaintiff, which in this case is Washington D.C., U.S.A., or the governing law of the agreement, which in this is alleged to be English law, and not the law of the forum where the suit is brought to resolve the dispute. Mustaque Alam Chowdhury vs. The Court of Joint District and 2nd Artha Rin Adalat (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J)(Civil) 4 ADC 906
Sections 5 and 6: Artha Rin Adalat-Order-Interlocutory order-Decree-Appeal & Revision.
Held: The apex court held the power of High Court Division under article 102 of the Constitution can not be taken away or curtailed by subordinate legislation i.e. the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 and as such the writ petition against interlocutory order passed by Artha Rin Adalat quite maintainable. Mr. Justice Md Joymul Abedin Harun-or-Rasid (Md.) Vs Pubali Bank Ltd and others 10 BSCD-2007-Page 8 12 MLR (AD) 343
Sections 5(4), 5(5) and 6(Ka):
Held: Collective reading of the sections 5(4), 5(5) and 6(Ka) of the Ain of 1990 shows that Artha Rin Adalat shall follow and apply the Code of Civil Procedure as a Civil Court in exercising its jurisdiction. powers and functions while adjudicating any dispute between the parties before it including execution of its decree insofar as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of section 6(Ka) or any other provisions of the Arthu Rin Adalat Ain, 1990. Section 6( Ka) has excluded the operation of Rules 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in matters of execution of any decree. In other words, Artha Rin Adalat shall execute its decree applying the provisions of sections 55 and 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 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 execluded by section 6(Ka). Mr. Justice Md. Joymil Abedin Hazzera Begum Vs Artha Rin Adalat and others. 10 BSCD-2007 Page-7/12 BLC (AD) 153, 4 Law Guardian (AD) 270
Sections 5(4) and 60(3)-The proceeding which were filed under the Artha Rin Ain 1990 but proceeded when the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 came into force, shall proceed as 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 (Spl Original), 12 BLC (2007)-HCD-742
Section 5-The Artha Rin Adalat Act, 1990 to be a special procedural law rather than a substantive law affecting the rights of the parties. It was submitted that where parties have agreed that a foreign law governs a dispute, capacity to sue is governed either by the law of the domicile of the plaintiff, which in this case is Washington D.C., U.S.A.. or the governing law of the agreement, which in this is alleged to be English law, and not the law of the forum where the suit is brought to resolve the dispute. Mustaque Alam Chowdhury V's. The Court of Joint District and 2nd Artha Rin Adalat (Mohammad Faciul Karim, J) (Civil). 4 ADC (2007) 906.
Sections 5(4), 5(5) and 6(Ka)-Since section 5(4) and (5) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 has clothed the Artha Rin Adalat with the power to exercise its jurisdiction as Civil Court following the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure insofar as it is not inconsistent with any provision of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, the legislature was required to make express provision in section 6(Ka) to exclude the operation of section 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it was not done so. Section 6(Ka) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 cannot, therefore, be construed to exclude the operation of section 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure in matters of execution of any decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat. Harun-al-Rashid Mollah vs Bangladesh, 12 BLC (AD) 153.
Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."
