IN THE COURT OF THE ARTHA RIN ADALAT AIN, 3RD COURT, DHAKA
ARTHA RIN SUIT NO. 226 OF 2006
Dutch Bangla Bank Limited
WRITTEN OBJECTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF AGAINST THE APPLICATION FILED BY DEFENDANT UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE ARTHA RIN ADALAT AIN, 2003 AND ORDER VII RULE 11 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE:
01. That the defendant has filed this Application in the instant suit seeking relief for rejection of the plaint of the suit under section 5 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
02. That the defendant seeking relief for rejection of plaint showing ground that the Artha Rin Adalat has not jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant suit. There is nothing said in the sub-rule (a), (b), (c) and (d) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject any plaint for the reason of having no jurisdiction to adjudicate of the suit. Therefore, the Application for rejection of plaint for the reason of having no jurisdiction by the Artha Rin Adalat to adjudicate the instant suit will be rejected summarily.
03. That in the 2nd para of the Application it is claimed that there is no scope to file suit in the Artha Rin Adalat in relation to the cheque related matter, which is denied by the defendant.
04. That the plaintiff bank submits cheques before HSBC Bank USA under ‘The Cash Letter Service’ to enchash USDollar Cheques. The last paragraph of clause 6 under ‘Operating Guidelines’ of ‘The Cash Letter Service’ is as follows:
“Please note that checks presented on an individual Check Collection basis are subject to service fees imposed by HSBC Bank USA and the paying bank. The time for receipt for payment of checks presented on an Individual Check Collection asis varies widely. And it is not uncommon for payment to take more than one month. You must also note that payment of Individual Check Collection items may be charged back against your account for reason of fraud and forgery, more than six years after payment.”
05. That on 13.12.2004 the plaintiff bank upon receipt of the payment from HSBC Bank USA against Cheque No. 0041728 amounting to USDollar 12,000.00 only which was submitted by the defendant to the plaintiff bank for encashment it became a contingent liability upon the plaintiff bank up to seven years from the date of receipt of the payment.
06. That the defendant executed ‘Letter of Indemnity dated 20.12.2004’ in respect of payment of the remittance of the Cheque No. 0041728 in his account. In the last paragraph of the Letter of Indemnity dated 20.12.2004, the defendant agreed to reimburse the cheque amount along with all charges, expenses etc at call without question in the event of any action or claim made against the plaintiff bank in respect of the payment of the cheque.
07. That when HSBC Bank USA confirmed about the forgery against the cheque at that moment the contingent liability of the plaintiff bank in respect of the cheque became absolute/confirmed liability. HSBC Bank USA debited the plaintiff bank’s account being No. 000134503 maintained with HSBC Bank USA on 11.05.2005 and informed the same to the plaintiff bank vide swift message 12.05.2005, the plaintiff bank had right to create forced loan against the Cheque amount along with interest and charges. Again since the plaintiff bank submitted the cheque before HSBC Bank USA under arrangement of indemnification in case of forgery of the cheque and the defendant also had executed Letter of Indemnity dated 20.12.2004 in favour of the plaintiff bank, the plaintiff bank had every right to create forced loan when HSBC Bank USA debited plaintiff bank’s account for the reason of forgery of the cheque. It comes very well under the definition of ÔFYÕ provided under section 2(M) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.
08. That actually the defendant filed this Application to hamper the recovery process initiated against him and with the view to by pass his legal obligation to repay the loan along with interest.
09. That the defendant failed to show any specific provision of law or valid ground to reject the plaint but tried to mislead the Court regarding the provision of law. So the Application seeking rejection of plaint of the suit be rejected.
In the circumstances, the Application seeking rejection of plaint of the suit filed by the defendant be dismissed with costs in favour of the plaintiff bank.
And for this act of kindness the defendant as in duty bound shall ever pray.
I, ____________________________, son of _____________________, of Dutch Bangla Bank Limited, Local Office, 1, Dilkusha Commercial Area, Dhaka, aged about ________ years, by occupation service, by faith Muslim, Nationally Bangladeshi by birth, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:
1) That I am _______________ of the plaintiff bank and fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this Affidavit.
2) That the statements made above are true to my knowledge and belief and the rest are submission before the Hon’ble Court.
The deponent is known to me and identified by me.