Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation Order, 1973

 

Article 21(3)—

There is no penal clause in President's Order 7 of 1973 to the effect that a transfer of a property mortgaged to HBFC shall be deemed to be invalid in the absence of the prior permission of the Corporation for such transfer. Therefore, the only implication of the Article 21(3) is that if a transfer is made without prior permission, then the transferee shall be bound to pay the loan due to the Corporation.

Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Works, Government of People's Republic of Bangladesh vs Sultana Suraiya Akhter and others 48 DLR 389.

Article 27-

The cases of the House Building Finance Corporation for realisation of loan cannot be tried by the Artha Rin Adalat – If it is so done it will be wholly without jurisdiction.

Jahan Ara Akter Begum and others vs House Building Finance Corporation 47 DLR 158.

Article 27-

'Suit' is a term of article and ordinarily means a proceeding instituted in the civil Court by presentation of a plaint. The action contemplated under Article 27 is, therefore, outside the concept of ·~" which we have found to correspond with 'suit' as provided in the main part of section 5( I) of the Act.

Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation vs Jahan Ara Akhter and others 49 DLR (AD) 80.

Article 27(7d) –

The power of passing any other incidental orders does not mean that the District Judge has the power to transfer the Miscellaneous Case to any other court for trial under article 27(7d) of President's Order 7 of 1973.

Wazir Jahan Begum and another vs Government of Bangladesh and others (Spl. Originnal) 56 DLR 621.

Article 37 –

Every applicant to whom loan is sanctioned shall be required, amongst other things, to execute a mortgage deed under HBFC. Loan Regulations, 1977.

BHBFC vs A Mannan, Advocate 41 DLR (AD) 143.

 

BANGLADESH HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION
ORDER (P.O. NO.7 OF 1973)

 

Article—21(10)

Whether
House Building Finance Corporation can increase rate of interest—Whether it can
be increased on the basis of mortgage deed—Offer and acceptance as per sanction
letters from the contract—there being no provision in the sanction letters of
increase for rate of interest, the defendant is not authorised 10 increase the
rate invoking the provisions of the mortgage deed which is aimed at securing
the repayment of the loan and is a separate, distinct and independent
transaction from the contract of loan, the mortgage not being a part of the
contract—Government can only determine and fix the rate of interest but
Government cannot predetermine and refax rate of :interest after the fixation
of rate of interest at which loan was sanctioned.

Bangladesh
House Building Finance Corporation, Chittagong Vs. Abdul Mannan, Idvocate and
others; 7 BLD (HCD) 37.

 

 

Bangladesh
House Building Finance Corporation Order, 1973 (P.O. 7 Of 1973)

 

Article—27

Artha Rin
Adalat Act, 1990, Section — 5(1)

Upon
examining the relevant provisions of Artha Rin Adalat Act, 1990 and P.O. No. 7
of 1973, particularly Article 27, the Appellate Division held that the world
mamla as used in Section 5(1) of the Acrt refers to ‘suit’ and not to all kinds
of legal proceedings.

Before
the promulgation of the Artha Rin Adalat Act a financial institution such as
Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation could institute a suit in the
Civil Court for realisation of its dues notwithstanding the special provisions
made for the same purposein law by which the said Corporation was established.

The
purpose of enacting the Artha Rin Adalat Act, 1990 appears to be that the
legislature wanted to exclude the ordinary Civil Court with all its lengthy
procedures as a forum for realisation of loan given by a financial institution
and substitute in its place a Special Court, namely, the Artha Rin Adalat, with
some special procedures for the purpose of minimizing delay but the action will
nevertheless be in the form of a suit involving all other allied laws, namely,
the Court Fees Act, the Limitation Act, the Code of Civil Procedure (to the
extent made applicable).

Bangladesh
House Building Finance Corporation vs. Jahan Ara Akhter and another, 16 BLD
(AD) 231

 

Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation
Order, 1973 [P.O. 7 of 1973]

 

Article-27

Artha
Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 [IV of 1990]

Sections-5
and7

Article 27 of P.O. No. 7 of 1973 being a
self-sufficient and self-contained legislation, the House Building Finance
Corporation is under no obligation to seek redress before the Artha Rin Adalat.
The provisions of one special law cannot over-ride the provisions of another
special law.

Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation Vs. Shahid Sarwar Abu
Hossain 9 BLT (HCD)-289

Section-9

The committee did not base its decision on any
breach of the terms or conditions of the sanction or any incorrect statements
of the petitioners. We also find that the committee did not make any inquiry to
find out any breach of terms or conditions subject to which the sanction was
granted or any statements ever made by the petitioners,. which were not
Correct. The decision of the committee also does not show what directions were
given to the petitioners, which they were bound in law to comply with but did
not comply. In the absence of any such finding, just by saying for repeated
non-compliance with the notice, the committee was not empowered to cancel the
sanction.

A Rouf Chowdhury & Anr. Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 8 BLT (HCD)-277.