Public
Demands Recovery Act [III of 1913]
Section 4—
Issuance of
certificate under section 4 of the Act itself on the basis of requisition
signed by the Bank manager shall be conclusive proof that the amount specified
therein is due to the Bank and further determination is excluded.
Bangladesh
Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprises and another 52 DLR (AD) 57.
Section 6—
Non-compliance
with the mandatory provisions of section 6 has rendered the procedure illegal.
Mannaco Lab
Ltd vs General Certificate Officer 42 DLR 159.
Sections 7 and 13—
A sale held
without certificate proceeding is not void merely on the ground of non—service
of notice under section 7 of the PDR Act. It is only voidable. For that the
suit must be brought for setting aside sale within one year from the date of
the delivery of possession under section 36 of the Act.
Mokbul
Hossain vs Anil Kumar Shaha 37 DLR 131.
Sections 7 and 36, Proviso (a)—
Section 18
of Limitation Act is applicable to a suit under the Public Demands Recovery
Act. Section 36, Proviso (a) is no bar to such a suit.
Amina Khatun
vs Ansar Ali 40 DLR 389.
Section 8—
In the
instant litigation there is no application of section 8 of the PDR Act because
the question of payment of any money to the certificate debtors is not
involved.
Parul Bala@
Parul Rani Shah Moniol vs Suruj Miah and others 53 DLR 481.
Sections 10A—
A claim when
admitted by borrower or fixed and determined in accordance with law becomes
dues recoverable under the PDR Act. Recourse could not be had under the Act to
recover Bank’s claim which has not been determined or admitted. MM Enterprise
Limited vs General Certificate Officer 45 DLR 407.
Sections 10A—
The
legislature as a policy decision made the changes in the law for quick recovery
of the loan. Thus section 1 OA of the Act which provides for a special
procedure relating to recovery of dues cannot be said to be arbitrary and
illegal.
Bangladesh
Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprise and another 50 DLR (AD) 194.
Sections 10A—
The High
Court Division wrongly held that section IOA of the Act provides arbitrary
power without a provision for hearing. It is the policy of .the legislature to
make an enactment to that effect. It cannot be said that the law is bad because
it is not in consonance with the principle of natural justice and it is harsh
and arbitrary.
Bangladesh
Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprise and another 50 DLR (AD) 194.
Sections 10A, 51, 52 & 54—
On a
reference to other provisions of the Act, it is found that all the defaulting
borrowers of Krishi Bank are entitled to equal protection of law provided by
the Act by way of appeal, review and revision and as such the learned Judges
wrongly held that section 10A offends Articles 27 and 31 of the Constitution.
Bangladesh
Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprise and another 50 DLR (AD) 194
Section 21—
The object
of both the ‘sections is to put a stop to benami purchases in auction sale.
Both the sections have provided that no suit shall be maintainable against a
certified purchaser.
Angada
Chandra Roy vs Amarendra Nath Mondal and others 48 DLR 595.
Section 25(1)—
Auction sale
of property of a company—The Company is in liquidation long afterwards—Question
of setting aside the sale—Provisions of the Banking Companies Ordinance when
read with those of the Companies Act and the Public Demands Recovery Act, it
appears that the provisions of the Banking Companies Act shall be effective in
addition to and not in derogation to the Companies Act or any other law for the
time being in force excepting the provisions which are specifically made in the
Ordinance. In view of the fact that the law under which the auction sale took
place has made provisions for the aggrieved person to seek the relief of
setting aside the auction and the plaintiff did not avail of the forum for
appropriate remedy and the auction is still subsisting in the eye of law, the
same cannot be set aside now in the present proceeding under the Banking Companies
Ordinance.
Official
Liquidator vs Jahura Khatun 43 DLR 558.
Section 36—
The
plaintiff—respondents had moved the Circle Officer (Revenue) for setting aside
the auction sale ignoring the provisions of section 36 of PDR Act. Fraud and
collusion in holding auction sale were not proved.
If the
auction sale stands, plaintiff respondents can no longer claim any right, title
and interest in the disputed land.
Alauddin
Sardar vs Surendra Nath Falia 40 DLR (AD) 257.
Section 37—
After having
exhausted all procedures under the Public Demands Recovery Act which is a
special law the plaintiffs are precluded from coming to the civil Court. The
instant suits are therefore barred by law on the face of the plaint themselves.
Marida Begum
vs Md Hasan 43 DLR 242.
Section 37—
Since fraud
has been alleged by the plaintiffs in auction of their suit land and they were
not made parties in the auction proceedings, the party affected by auction sale
can take shelter of the Civil Court.
Parul
Bala@Parul Rani Shah Mondol vs Suruj Miah and others 53 DLR 481
Section 53—
The power
given under section 53 of the Public Demands Recovery Act is very wide and is
not restricted to be used only suo motu. Section 53 does not set any time limit
and lapse of 20 years does not bar an application if circumstances justify such
delay or lapse of time.
Sajeda Begum
vs Member, Bhumi Appeal Board and others 51 DLR 516.
Public
Servants (Dismissal on Conviction) Ordinance, 1985
Section 3(3)—
Since the petitioner
was acquitted of the charge of misappropriation upon an appeal · and the
government’s appeal against acquittal was dismissed, he is entitled to be reinstated
in his service. The Corporation’s memo refusing to re-instate him is illegal
and the petitioner is directed to be re-instated in his service at once.
Abdur
Razzaque vs Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation 45 DLR 613.