Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Order, 1972

 

 

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.

Article 33-

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.

Article 33(1)-

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.

 

Article 34—

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.

Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Order, 1972

 

 

Article-33

The Sangstha, alleged in Its petition that was established under P.O. No 128 of 1972 to provide credit facilities and other assistance to industrial concerns Bangladesh. The opposite party No. 1 Tapashee Shipping Lines Limited is a public limited company carrying on the business of water transport — On the application of Tapashee, the Sangstha sanctioned a loan to Tapashee for acquisition of 2 (Two) 600 DWT cargo vessels — To that effect a loan Agreement was concluded between Tapashee and the Sangstha on 31.5.1980

— On 28.9. 1980 a tripartite contract was entered into between the Sangstha and Tapashee on the one hand as ‘Purchaser” and the opposite party No.6 Dira Dockyard and Engineers Limited, a ship building company. It was stipulated in the tripartite contract that the dockyard will build at its own site. 2 (Two) coasters of 600 DWT capacity in accordance with specifications drawn by the Sangstha and deliver the same to Tapashee.

The total price of the 2 (Two) coasters will be Tk.95,75,000/- out of this amount the Sangstha will pay to the dockyard Tk.70,00,000/- will be paid by the Tapashee through a crossed cheque on a scheduled bank — the work order was placed on 28.10.1980 and last date of delivery of the vessels was 16.12.1981 — But the dockyard in violation of the contract and the letter of credit had imported/procured secondhand/reconditioned marine engines. Tapashee was asked by the Sangstha but Tapashee did not care to reply — The project was also discussed by the Martial Law Investigation Committee and the disbursed amount — the Sangstha claims a sum of Tk 64.46 lakhs due upto 1.1.1983. Held : In the face of such grave allegations Tapashee chose for reasons best known to it not to give any reply to the series of letters addressed to it by the Sangstha and remain silent which was trying to salvage the project. There cannot be any manner of doubt that the Sangstha in the aforesaid circumstances became entitled to repayment of the loan under Article 32. That being so, there can also be no doubt that the Sangstha was fully entitled to proceed against the opposite party respondents No.1-5 under Article 33 for realisation of the loan. Thus in any case it must be said that the High Court Division upon a mistaken view of the law and facts wrongly held that Article 33 was not attracted in the case of the aforesaid opposite party-respondents. In view of the discussion above, the Sangsthas appeal is liable to be allowed. (Para-36)

Dira Dockyard & Engineers Ltd & Ors Vs. BSRS & Ors 3 BLT (AD)-207.

Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Order, 1972

 

Bangladesh
Shilpa Rin Sangstha Order, 1972

(P0 No.128
Of 1972)

 

Article—7(1)

In
view of the provision of Article 7(1) and in the absence of any provision in
the BSRS Employees Service Regulations to assess merit for promotion, the Board
of Directors of the BSRS is competent to formulate guidelines for promotion of
its officers and employees and to assess their merit by the promotion committee
for effecting promotion.

Md. Junnur
Rahman Vs. Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha (BSRS), 17 BLD (HCD) 488.

 

Article—33

Article
33 of the Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha. Order (P.O. 128 of 1972) provides for
filing an application before the District Judge for realisation of its
outstanding dues. Such an application has to be filed before the District Judge
who may hear it himself or transfer it to an Additional District Judge or a
Subordinate Judge for its disposal. A Subordinate Judge acting as an Artha Rin
Adalat cannot entertain such an application directly.

Bangladesh
Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs Fashion Wear Limited, 18 BLD (AD) 186.

Ref:
16BLD(AD)23 1—Cited.

 

Articles—33,
34 and 35

The
Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Order is a special order which provides for
three independent and alternative modes of recovery of Bangladesh Shilpa Rin
Sangstha dues as contained in Articles 33, 34 and 35 of the Order. Article 33
provides for filing of an application before the District Judge. Article 34
speaks of taking over management and administration of an industrial concern
and its sale while Article 35 provides for taking recourse to the Public Demands
Recovery Act.

Bangladesh
Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs Azir Uddin Chowdhury, 18 BLD (AD) 145.

 

Article—35(5)(a)(iii)

It
puts a definite embargo on any Court to pass any order of injunction or any
other order prohibiting or restraining the Sangstha with regard to such taking
over, sale or transfer. Article 34(5)(b) precludes the Courts of civil
jurisdiction to grant an adinterim or temporary injunction in a matter covered
by Article 34 of the Order.

Bangladesh
Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs Azir Uddin Chowdhury, 18 BLD (AD) 145.

Ref:
1991 BLD (11 BLD)315; C.P. No. 415 of 1980—Cited.

 

Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Order, 1972

Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Order, 1972

[P.O. No. 128 of 1972]

Article-33

The Sangstha, alleged in its petition that was
established under P.O. No 128 of 1972 to provide credit facilities and other
assistance to industrial concerns Bangladesh. The opposite party No. I Tapashee
Shipping Lines Limited is a public limited company carrying on the business of
water transport—On the application of (Tapashee, the Sangstha sanctioned a loan
to Tapashee,, for acquisition of 2 (Two) 600 DWT cargo vessels – To that effect
a loan Agreement was concluded between Tapashee and the Sangstha on 31.5.1980 —
On 28.9.1980 a tripartite contract was entered into between the Sangstha and
Tapashee on the one hand as “Purchaser and the opposite party No.6 Dira
Dockyard and Engineers Limited, a ship building company. It was stipulated in
the tripartite contract that the dockyard will build at its own site. 2 (Two)
coasters of 600 DWT capacity in accordance with specifications drawn by the
Sangstha and deliver the same to Tapashee.

The total price of the 2 (Two) coasters will
be Tk.95,75,000/- out of this amount the Sangstha will pay to the dockyard
Tk.70,00,000/- will be paid by the Tapashee through a crossed cheque on a
scheduled bank—the work order was placed on 28.10.1980 and last date of delivery
of the vessels was 16.12.1981—But the dockyard in violation of the contract and
the letter of credit had imported/procured secondhand !reconditioned marine
engines. Tapashee was asked by the Sangstha but Tapashee did not care to reply
— The project was also discussed by the Martial Law Investigation Committee and
the disbursed amount the Sangstha claims a sum of Tk 64.46 lakhs due upto 1 .1
.1983.

Held: In the face of such grave allegations
Tapashee chose for reasons best known to it not to give any reply to the series
of letters addressed to it by the Sangstha and remain silent which was trying
to salvage the project. There cannot be any mariner of doubt that the Sangstha
in the aforesaid circumstances became entitled to repayment of the loan under
Article 32 That being so, there can also be no doubt that the Sangstha was
fully entitled to proceed against the opposite party respondents No. 1-5 under
Article 33 for realisation of the loan. Thus in any case it must be said that
the High Court Division upon a Mistaken view of the law and facts wrongly held
that Article 33 was not attracted in the case of the aforesaid opposite
party-respondents. In view of the discussion above, the Sangstha’s appeal is
liable to be allowed.

Dira Dockyard & Engineers Ltd & Ors. Vs. BSRS & Ors.
3BLT(AD)-207