Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961

 

 

Section 3(2) –

The petitioner should have impleaded BADC as a respondent being the necessary and proper party against whom the relief is actually claimed. The petitioner has impleaded the officers of the Corporation who have no authority to reinstate him to his post. The petition is therefore not maintainable.

KM Fazlul Haque vs Chairman, Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation and others 49 DLR 27.

Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961

 

Bangladesh
Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961

(XXX VII OF
1961)

 

Section—74(1)

In
the instant case, no formal notice under sub-section (1) of the section was
served by the plaintiff upon the Corporation or its officials prior to
institution of the suit. The High Court Division took the view that the
objection as to non-compliance of section 74(1) was taken for the first time
before it. This objection, although not taken in the written statement was
taken by way of filing an application on 8 September 1992 in the trial court
which passed an order on that date for keeping the application on record. This
was also taken as a ground in the memo of Title Appeal No. 424 of 1992. The
lower appellate court found that there was no service of notice which was a
factual finding. Regardless of this finding the High Court Division construed
Ext. 2 (Kha) dated 12 March 1991 as a notice which lacked the formalities of a
notice under section 74(1). Again this purported notice was served upon the
Corporation on 12 March 1991 long after six months from the date of accrual of
the cause of action according to the plaint itself and therefore the notice was
ineffectual even if it be so construed. [The High Court Division missed all
these facts.]

Bangladesh
Agricultural Development Corporation (BADC) Vs Abdul Barek Dewan being dead his
heirs: Bali Begum and others, 19 BLD (AD) 106

 

Section—74(1)
(3)

Constitution
of Bangladesh, 1972 Article—111

Section
74(3) of the Ordinance provides that any suit in respect of an act purporting
to be done under the Ordinance must be commenced within 6 months after the
accrual of the cause of action and such view was taken by the Appellate
Division in the case reported in 36DLR (AD) 69. Surprisingly, the High Court
Division criticized the said decision by way of section 74(3) of the Ordinance
speaks of action whereas in the said decision the action was understood as
suit. The reasoning given by the High Court Division was first that it did not
agree with the decision of the Appellate Division and secondly that the
decision was given “per incuriarn”. The criticism as offered by the learned
Judges of the High Court Division betrays their lack of knowledge about the
doctrine of “per incuriam” and Article 111 of the Constitution. Besides, the
word ‘action’ in sub-section (3) read along with sub-section (1) of section 74
of the Ordinance cannot mean anything else than a suit. A case against the
Corporation in matters of limitation is governed by the special law as provided
in sub-section (3) and not by the general law of limitation. The contrary view
of the High Court Division is obviously wrong.

Bangladesh
Agricultural Development Corporation (BADC) Vs Abdul Barek Dewan being dead his
heirs: Bali Begum and others, 19 BLD (AD) 106.

 

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.