IN THE ARTHA RIN ADALAT, 3rd COURT, DHAKA
MISCELLANEOUS CASE. NO. ____OF _______________
(ARISING OUT OF ARTHA JARI CASE NO. ____ OF______)
Arab Bangladesh Bank Limited and others
WRITTEN OBJECTION ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1.
01. That the case filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in its present form and manner and as such the above case is liable to be dismissed.
02. That the petitioner has no locus standi to file the above present case and as such the above case is liable to be dismissed.
03. That the case is filed in connivance of the opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 in order to frustrate and delay the Artha Jari Case No.11 of 2001 in the 3rd Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka and as such the case is liable to be dismissed.
04. That the case filed by the petitioner is baseless, unfounded and with malafide intention to make illegal gain. The petitioner has filed the present case without any legal basis and as such the case is liable to be dismissed.
05. That the case is barred by law and such the case is liable to be rejected.
06. That the case is barred by principles of estopel, acquisence and waiver and as such the case is liable to be dismissed.
07. That the statements made in the petition, which are not specifically admitted by this opposite party No.1, shall be deemed to have been denied by this opposite party.
08. That the statements made in paragraph No. 1, 2 & 3 of the petition are correct, and as such are admitted by this opposite party.
09. That the statements made in paragraph No.4 of the petition are matters of record, as such this opposite party does not offer any comments.
10. That the statement made in paragraph No.5 (ka) and 5 (kha) of the petition as to the chain of ownership of the opposite party No.3 are correct, as such, are admitted by this opposite party.
11. That the statement made in paragraph No. 5 (ga) of the petition to the effect that the opposite party No.3 sold the case property to Monir Chemical Limited vide deeds Nos. 3680 or 3703 dated 28.03.1978 or by any other deed or that he delivered the possession of the case property to Monir Chemical Limited are completely false, concocted, collusive and highly motivated hence denied by this opposite party. Contrary to what have been alleged, this opposite party submits that the opposite party No.3 has mortgaged the property in question with this opposite party on 14.02.95. The opposite party No.3 had full title and interest in the property at the time of creating mortgage with this opposite party.
12. That the statements made in paragraph No. 5 (gha) of the petition to the effect that the directors of Monir Chemical Limited applied to the opposite party Nos.4 & 5 on 30.12.2000 or that they have executed any Irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favour of the opposite party No.4 are matters of record. To the contrary whatever have been stated in that paragraph this opposite party submits that as Monir Chemical Limited did not obtain any right or title or interest over the case property and as such so called General Power of Attorney has no legal effect in the eye of law.
13. That the statement made in paragraph No.5 (umma) of the petition to the effect that Monir Chemical Limited availed loan from Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha or that it has executed relevant charge documents in favour of Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha to secure the repayment of the loan are irrelevant, as such are denied by this opposite party.
14. That the statement made in paragraph No.5(cha) of the petition are irrelevant as such are denied by this opposite party.
15. That the statement made in paragraph No.5(chha) of the petition regarding the publication of the tender notice dated 07.04.2001 in ‘Daily Jugantar’ by Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha for selling the case property under section 34 of the Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Order, 1972 are irrelevant and as such are denied by this opposite party.
16. That the statement made in paragraph No.5(ja) of the petition regarding the purchase of the case property by the petitioner through the so called tender or that the petitioner obtained the Sale Certificate on payment of Tk.66,50,000.00 or any other amount to the opposite party No.4 and 5 or that the opposite party No.4 & 5 on 26.02.2003 delivered the possession of the case property along with other properties to the petitioner or that the petitioner have acquired the sixteen anna title over the case property or that the petitioner is enjoying the case property with possession or that it was known to this opposite party or that the petitioner applied for mutation of his name or that Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha gave a letter as to no objection in mutation of the petitioner’s name are irrelevant hence are denied by this opposite party.
17. That the statement made in paragraph No.5(jha) of the petition to the effect that the opposite party No.2 & 3 have no right or title or interest over the case property or that the opposite parties Nos.6-12 mortgaged the scheduled property with the opposite party No.4 & 5 or that they established Monir Chemical Limited on that property or that the opposite party Nos.6-12 failed to repay the so called loan or that the opposite parties Nos.4 & 5 took the case property in their possession or that they published a tender notice to sell the case property or that the petitioner purchased the case property at Tk.66,50,000.00 or that the opposite party No.3 sold the case property to the opposite party No.6 vide deeds No.3680 or 3703 dated 28.05.1978 or that the possession of the property was delivered to the opposite party No.6 are completely false, collusive and hence denied by this opposite party. This opposite party further denies that the encumbrance of the case property created by the opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 in favour of this opposite party is collusive or fraudulent or that the opposite party or that the opposite party No.2 & 3 has no right to mortgage the case property in favour of the opposite party No.1 or that the mortgage in favour of the opposite party No.1 was an illegal one or that the petitioner reserves the right to take any action so called fraudulent activities or that this opposite party did any fraud in collusion with opposite parties No.2 & 3 by not collecting the CIB report or collecting the Non Encumbrance Certificate of the case property.
18. That the statement made in the paragraph No.5(neo) of the petition to the effect that that the petitioner came to know on 25.10. 2003 as to the proceeding taken by this opposite party to sell the case property through auction or that the petitioner scrutinised the case record or collected the photocopies of the documents of Title Suit No.104 of 1996 are false, concocted and collusive, as such denied by this opposite party.
19. That the cause of action as stated by the petitioner in paragraph 5(ta) are baseless, as such are denied by this opposite party.
20. That the case of this opposite party is as follows:
(a) That admittedly the opposite party No.3 purchased the case property from Mr. Lal Mohon Dhali vide registered deed No.6930 dated 10.09.1977.
(b) That thereafter the opposite party No.3 mortgaged the case property on 14.02.1995 with the opposite party No.1 as security of loan availed by his son i.e., the opposite party No.2.
(c) That the petitioner in collusion with the opposite party No.2 & 3 came up with a false plea with a view to vitiate the lawful mortgage created by the opposite party No.3 in favour of this opposite party and thereby to frustrate the decree obtained by this opposite party in Title Suit No. 104 of 1996. The decree in the aforesaid suit was passed foreclosing the suit property and this opposite party thus is legally entitled to sell the suit property by way of auction.
(d) That it is further submitted that Monir Chemicals Ltd. never obtained any right, title, interest or enjoyed possession whatsoever over the case property at any time. Hence, Monir Chemical Ltd. had not accrued any right or interest so as to execute any deed in favour of any body. As such, the alleged power of attorney executed by Monir Chemical Ltd. or it’s director(s) in favour of Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Shangstha to sell the case property have no value in the eye of law. Thus any sale of the case property by Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Shangstha to the petitioner is also void and has no value in the eye of law.
21. That the petitioner has obtained no title or interest or possession over the case property and as such the petition of the petitioner is liable to be rejected with compensatory costs.
Wherefore it is humbly prayed that the case filed against the opposite party No.1 be dismissed by the Hon’ble Court with compensatory costs and/or pass any order as the Court may deem fit and proper.
AND for this act of kindness the opposite party No.1 as in duty bound shall ever pray.
I, ………………………….son of …………………………of Arab Bangladesh Bank Limited, Kakrail Branch having address at 81, VIP Road, Kakrail, Dhaka aged about …… years, by faith Muslim, Nationality Bangladeshi by birth, profession Service, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows:
1. That I am an officer of the opposite party No.1 Bank and well conversant with the facts of the case and competent to swear this Affidavit.
2. That the statements of facts made in this written objection 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 ___________ at _________ a.m. before the Commissioner of affidavit.
The deponent is known to me and he has signed in this written objection before me.