IN THE ARTHA RIN ADALAT, 2nd COURT AT DHAKA
ARTHA RIN SUIT NO. ___ OF 2005
Bank Asia Limited
Gulshan Branch
94, Gulshan Avenue
Gulshan, Dhaka-1212
PLAINTIFF
-Versus-
1. Mr. X
Proprietor of M/s. K Brothers
17/8/2 Babar Road
Mohammadpur
Dhaka
2. Mrs. Y
wife of Z
8/1, Ring Road, Shamoli
Dhaka
DEFENDANTS
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY BY SALE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY SUIT VALUED AT TK. 10,21,876.55 (TAKA TEN LAC TWENTY ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX AND PAISA FIFTY FIVE) ONLY INCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AS ON 30.04.2005
The plaintiff above-named most respectfully states as
FOLLOWS:
That the plaintiff is a banking company incorporated under the relevant Companies Act. It carries on banking business within the territory of Bangladesh through its various branches including the Gulshan Branch, Dhaka as stated in the cause title (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff bank”).
That the defendant No.1 is a businessman by his profession and carries on business under the name and style of his proprietorship concern M/S. K Brothers and is the borrower. The defendant No.2 is mortgagor who mortgaged her land (fully described in the schedule below) securing the loan availed by the defendant No. 1 and at the same time stood as guarantor. The defendant’s addresses in the cause title are correct to the best of the plaintiff’s knowledge.
That in the course of business, the defendant No. 1 opened an account being No. ______________ on _____________ with the plaintiff bank under the name and style of his proprietorship concern M/S. K Brothers.
Thereupon at the request of the defendant No.1, the plaintiff bank initially sanctioned an Overdraft Facility of 5,00,000.00 (Taka five lac) only along with other facilities i.e. L/C of Tk. 03 lac and LTR (Sub-limit of L/C) of Tk. 1,500,00.00 vide Sanction Letter No. BA/GUL/CR/2001/619 dated 23.06.2001. Thereafter at the request of the defendant No. 1, plaintiff bank from time to time enhanced the said overdraft facility and lastly reached up to Tk. 8,00,000.00 (Taka eight lac) only vide Sanction letter No. BA/GUL/CR/2002/1486 dated 10.08.2002 with validity up to 22.06.2003.
That the Overdraft facility along with other facilities were secured inter alia as follows:
a) Registered Mortgage of land measuring 6.50 decimal within District Dhaka, P.S. previously Tejgaon at present Mohammadpur, under JL No. 240, Mouza Ramchandrapur, Sabek Khatian No. 568, Hal Khatian No. 334, under Dag No. 89 along with all the structures constructed thereon vide Deed of Mortgage No. 2446 dated 25.06.2001 supported by registered Irrevocable General Attorney being No. 2447 dated 25.06.2001 to sell the land in question. The mortgaged property stands in the name of the defendant No. 2.
b) Execution of personal guarantees of the defendant Nos. 1 & 2.
c) Usual charge documents including Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuity.
That the defendant No. 1 availed the credit facilities in full, but the defendant No.1 failed to adjust the liabilities within the validity period. Thereupon the defendant No. 1 vide letter dated 06.11.2003 acknowledged his liabilities and at the same time requested the plaintiff to renew and enhance the credit limit.
That thereafter being sympathetic to the plight of the defendant No.1, the plaintiff bank renewed the Overdraft facility on 27.04.2004 vide its Sanction letter No. BA/GUL/CR/2004/936 with a fresh validity up to 30.06.2004 on condition inter alia that the defendant No. 1 shall repay the existing loan liabilities lying with the plaintiff bank within the aforesaid validity.
That the defendant No. 1 was under legal obligation to repay the credit facilities as per terms and conditions of the Facility Letter dated 27.04.2004. But from the very inception the defendant No. 1 is violating the terms and condition of the Facility Letter and miserably failed to keep commitment in repayment of the loan as per terms of the Facility Letter dated 27.04.2004
That the defendant No.1 thereafter failed to adjust the above loan liabilities with the plaintiff bank. Despite repeated requests and reminders vide letters dated 05.02.2004, 03.07.2004, 27.07.2004 and 12.08.2004 by the plaintiff bank, the defendant No.1 miserably failed to adjust the aforesaid liabilities with the plaintiff bank.
That in response to the reminders of the plaintiff bank, the defendant No.1 from time to time by its letters dated 19.08.2004, ________, ________, _______, & ________ acknowledged the liability with the plaintiff bank and also committed to adjust the outstanding liabilities within a short period, but to no effect.
That as a result of defendant No. 1’s non-compliance in repayment of the loan, on 05.10.2004, the plaintiff’s Legal Counsel Lee, Khan & Partners sent a legal notice upon the defendants requesting thereby to adjust their liabilities with the plaintiff bank within 15 (fifteen) days of the receipt of the said notice failing which the defendants were warned that legal action would be initiated for recovery of the plaintiff bank’s dues.
That it is apparent from negative attitude of the defendants that they have been evading liquidating the long outstanding dues of the defendant No.1 with the plaintiff bank in breach of their obligations under the terms and conditions of the Facility Letter dated 27.04.2004. The plaintiff bank made repeated reminders to the defendant No. 1 to liquidate its liabilities with the plaintiff bank but the defendant No.1 continued to fail paying any attention to the plaintiff bank in this regard. Despite repeated requests and reminders issued to the defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff bank to adjust their outstanding liabilities, none of the defendants came forward to adjust the over dues.
That none of the defendants are serious at all with regard to adjust their outstanding liabilities with the plaintiff bank. It is evident from the conduct of the defendants that they have no intention to make repayment of their entire outstanding liabilities lying with the plaintiff bank.
That the plaintiff bank gave the defendants ample time and opportunity to clear the outstanding liabilities of the defendant No. 1 but the defendants are reluctant in this regard. It is abundantly clear that the defendants would not adjust the plaintiff bank’s dues unless compelled by law. The plaintiff bank cannot wait for an indefinite period for the defendants to adjust the outstanding liabilities of the defendant No. 1 lying with the plaintiff bank. The defendants are wilfully resorting to delaying tactics to avoid repayment of the long outstanding dues. Having no alternative the plaintiff bank is compelled to file this suit against the defendants to realize its legitimate dues. The plaintiff bank states that the defendants are severally and jointly liable to repay the outstanding dues of the defendant No.1 lying with the plaintiff bank.
That the plaintiff bank submits that it cannot recover its dues amicably. The plaintiff bank endeavoured all its efforts to recover its dues from the defendants but to no effect. The defendants made no effort to adjust their liability.
That the plaintiff bank with a view to dispose off the mortgaged properties in compliance with section 12 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, published ‘Auction Notice’ in the daily “Prothom Alo” on 28.05.2005 requesting the interested bidder to participate observing the time limit set forth in the said notice but no bidder has participated in the auction.
That the outstanding liability of the defendants is of Tk. 10,21,876.55 (Taka Ten lac twenty one thousand eight hundred seventy six and Paisa fifty five) only inclusive of interest and charges as on 30.04.2005, and the interest to be charged thereon, which the defendants are jointly and severally legally liable to pay.
That the cause of action to file this suit arose on _____________, when the defendant No. 1 opened account with the plaintiff Bank, on ____________, when the Plaintiff Bank sanctioned various credit facilities, on ___________, ______________ and ____________ when the credit facilities were renewed and enhanced, on __________ when the defendant No. 2 mortgaged her property, on ___________ when the defendant Nos. _____________ executed personal guarantees, on ________, ___________ and ____________ when the defendant No. 1 executed various charge documents, on various dates including 05.02.2004, 03.07.2004, 27.07.2004 and 12.08.2004 when the plaintiff Bank requested the defendant No. 1 to adjust the liabilities, on 05.10.2004 when the legal notice served by the plaintiff on 19.08.2004, ____________ and _________ when the defendant No. 1 committed to adjust its liabilities with the plaintiff bank on 28.05.2005 when the plaintiff Bank published ‘Auction Notice’ in the daily “Prothom Alo” under Section 12 (3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 and on each and every date when the defendants acknowledged the liabilities but continued to default in repayment of the outstanding liabilities with the plaintiff bank, and the said cause of action is continuing till date.
Thatthe suit is for realisation of a decree for a sum of Tk. 10,21,876.55 (Taka Ten lac twenty one thousand eight hundred seventy six and Paisa fifty five) only inclusive of interest and charges as on 30.04.2005 of a commercial bank and the said suit is within the jurisdiction of this Court. For the purpose of court fees, the plaintiff bank values the suit at the said amount and pays the highest court fees on the said amount.
That the Authorised Representative of the plaintiff bank in the instant suit is Mr._______________________, (please insert name) ________________ (please insert designation) of the plaintiff bank who is well conversant with the facts of the case and shall be liable to testify on behalf of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff bank, therefore, prays for:
(a) A decree for a sum of Tk. 10,21,876.55 (Taka Ten lac twenty one thousand eight hundred seventy six and Paisa fifty five) only inclusive of interest and charges as on 30.04.2005 in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants jointly and/or severally;
(b) A decree for the sale of the mortgaged property;
(c) A decree for interest from _________ till the date of filing the instant suit @ _____% per annum and pendente lite interest at the rate stipulated in the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree and from the date of decree till realization of the decretal amount;
(d) A personal decree against the defendant Nos.1 & 2;
(e) A decree for the entire costs of the Suit;
(f) Any other relief(s) to which the plaintiff bank is entitled in law and equity.
And for this act of kindness, the plaintiff bank as in duty bound shall ever pray.
SCHEDULE ‘A’
{Schedule under section 8(2) Ka Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003}
Description of Loan & amount outstanding
| Nature of Facilities | Limit
(in Tk.) |
Loan amount disbursed (in Tk.) | Interest
(in Tk.) |
Sub-total
(Principal + Interest) (in Tk.) |
Amount repaid as on 30.04.2005
(in Tk.) |
Outstanding amount as on 30.04.2005
(in Tk.) |
| OVER DRAFT | ||||||
| TOTAL | ||||||
SCHEDULE ‘B’
{Schedule under section 8(2) Kha of Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003}
SCHEDULE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of land measuring 6.50 decimal within District Dhaka, P.S. previously Tejgaon at present Mohammadpur, under JL No. 240, Mouza Ramchandrapur, Sabek Khatian No. 568, Hal Khatian No. 334, under Dag No. 89 along with all constructions and structures constructed or to be constructed thereon with all other rights, interests, title, easements etc. Attached or appertaining to the land.
AFFIDAVIT
I, _____________________ son of _________________________ of Bank Asia Limited, Gulshan Branch, having address at 94, Gulshan Avenue, Gulshan, Dhaka aged about ___ years, by faith _________, Nationality Bangladeshi by birth, profession service, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows:
1. That I am the officer of the Plaintiff of this plaint and well conversant with the facts of the case and competent to swear this Affidavit.
2. That the statements of facts made in this application are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and rests are submissions before this Hon’ble Court and in witness whereof I swear this affidavit and signed below on this the ______day of___________, 2005 at _________ a.m. before the Commissioner of affidavit.
| DEPONENT | |
| The deponent is known to me and identified by me. | |
| ADVOCATE |