Articles 3 and 34—
Special Law-Remedy against loanee-Sale affected under Article 34 of the BSRS Order cannot be called in question before the winding up court, the provision being one under special law that prevails over the general law.
Uttara Jute Fibres Industries vs Ashraf Jute Mills 44 DLR 452.
Herein the appellant, the builders being one of the parties in the agreement, must be liable for the loan as provided by the clause "any person liable for payment" as in clause (3)-Article 33 (l)-Sangstha entitled to recover the loan money from the appellant.
Dira Dockyard Engr Ltd vs BSRS 39 DLR (AD) 59
Articles 33, 34 and 35-
The trial Judge as well as the High Court Division acted illegally in granting temporary injunction in a matter covered under Article 34 of the BSRS Order which is a special enactment and it will prevail over general law. The temporary injunction order in this case had been passed contrary to the. scheme of the legislation and the purpose of the special law providing for speedy recovery of the dues of the Sangstha.
Bangladesh Shilpa Rain Sangstha vs Azir Uddin Chowdhury 51 DLR (AD)96.
Articles 33, 34 and 35-
There being a legal embargo on granting temporary injunction by the civil Court, the considerations of an arguable case and the BSRS not coming with clean hands are not at all relevant considerations in such a matter.
Bangladesh Shilpa Rain Sangstha vs Azir Uddin Chowdhury 96.
Under the Order the Sangstha has to file an application under Article 33(1) before the District Judge. A Subordinate Judge acting as an Artha Rin Adalat cannot directly entertain such an application.
Azizur Rahman vs BSR Sangstha and ors 55 DLR 107.
There is nothing in Article 34 or in any other provision of the BSRS Order to show that it is only in respect of a claim admitted by the loanee that the authority is entitled to proceed under the relevant provisions of the order for realisation of the dues.
Al-Helal Rice Mills Ltd vs Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha 51 DLR (AD) 51.
Articles 34 and 35- In an application under Order VII, rule II of the Code the statement in the plaint has to be looked into to determine if the suit is barred by any law. But under Article 34(5) it is not the statement in the plaint but the reliefs claimed in the suit which will determine whether the suit is entertainable or not.
Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha vs Rahman Textile Mills Ltd 221.
Articles 34 and 35-
The defendant-appellant need not have filed applications under Order VII, rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. It could have maintained applications under Article 34(5) of Presidents Order No. 128 of972, not for rejection of the plaint, but for not entertaining the suits.
Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha vs Rahman Textile Mills Ltd and others 51 DLR (AD) 221.