Case No: FAT No. 83 of 1999
Judge: Mahmudul Amin Choudhury.,
Court: High Court Division,,
Advocate: Mr. Mvi. Md. Wahidullah,,
Citation: 52 DLR (HCD) (2000) 4
Case Year: 2000
Appellant: Abdus Sattar and others
Respondent: International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd.
Subject: Artha Rin, Interpretation of Statute, Banking,
Delivery Date: 1999-05-16
Supreme Court of Bangladesh
High Court Division
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Mahmudul Amin Choudhury, J.
Md. Abdul Aziz, J.
International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd
May 16, 1999.
Interpretation of Statutes
What is not in the Act itself cannot be imported by way of interpretation by this Court. This Court may interpret any law but cannot import anything which is not in the law itself. ……(3)
Artha Rin Adalat Ain (IV of 1990)
The deposit was made on 5.4.99 which is long after the submission of the Memorandum of Appeal. This deposit is not in accordance with the provision of Ain and, as such, the same cannot be construed as proper and legal deposit.
Cases Referred To-
Uttara Bank vs. Macneill Kilburn Ltd and Ors, 1981 BLD (AD) 230=33 DLR (AD) 298; Triveni Engineering Works Ltd and others vs. Belganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., 1 (1992) BC 487 (3 & 5)
Mvi Md Wahidullah with Md Aminul Islam Mondal, Advocates—For the Appellants-Petitioners.
Not represented- the Respondents.
FAT No. 83 of 1999.
This application has been filed by the appellants praying for acceptance of the Memorandum of Appeal furnishing Bank-guarantee before the trial Court.
2. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants-petitioners and perused the petition. It appears that Title Suit No.32 of 1994 was filed by the plaintiff-Bank for realisation of Taka 16,74,458.01 only with interest at the rate of 20% per annum from the defendants-petitioners. The trial Court by judgment dated 30-11-98 decreed the suit. Thereafter defendants-petitioners preferred FAT No.83/1999 before this Court furnishing Bank guarantee before the trial Court.
3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants-petitioners submits that as the suit was filed and disposed of by the Artha Rin Adalat under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain the defendants had to file the Bank-guarantee for enabling them to prefer appeal under section 7 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain which provides for payment of at least 50% of the decretal amount within 30 days from the date of the decree for preferring the appeal. It is submitted that the Bank-guarantee furnished can be construed as 50% of the decretal amount as according to the learned Advocate this Bank-guarantee is as good as cash money and in support of his submission Moulavi Md Wahidullah placed reliance in the case of Uttara Bank vs Macneil Kilburn Ltd and Ors, reported in 1981 BLD (AD) 230=33 DLR (AD) 298 and also in the case of Triveni Engineering Works Ltd and others vs Belganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., reported in 1 (1992) BC 487. The learned Advocate contends that these two decisions indicate that in Banking transactions Bank-guarantee may be construed cash money and following the principles of law enunciated in these two decisions he submits this Memorandum of Appeal may be accepted as there is full compliance of section 7 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain.
4. The Artha Rin Adalat Ain provides that anyone desires to prefer any appeal against the judgment and decree passed by any Adalat in Rin Adalat case then he shall have to deposit at least 50% of the decretal amount with the trial Court and that should be done within 30 days from the date of the decree and unless that is done the appeal cannot be entertained. Here in the present case it appears that without depositing 50% of the decretal amount in cash the appellants-petitioners on furnishing Bank-guarantee tendered this petition of appeal. In section 7(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain the words ‘অন্ততঃ অর্ধেক অর্থ’ which is very significant, has been used. These words indicate that the aggrieved party should deposit 50% of the decretal amount in cash before preferring any appeal. The legislature was fully cautious in using the word “অর্থ”. They had full knowledge of the meaning of this word and Bank-guarantee. They have not used here words “Bank-guarantee/security’ while framing this law. The only word used is “অর্থ” means money in cash and not in any other form either in security, bond or Bank-guarantee. The law is very clear. Mvi Wahidullah tried to impress upon us that this Bank-guarantee may be construed as good as cash. But what is not in the Act itself cannot be imported by way of interpretation by this Court. This Court may interpret any law but cannot import anything which is not in the law itself. The laws will be framed by the legislature. When section 7 of the Ain is as clear as day-light we find no force in the argument advanced by Moulavi Md. Wahidullah and we cannot accept the petition of appeal. The two decisions cited by Moulavi Wahidullah relates to other matters and transactions which has no bearing with the proceeding under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain.
5. Mvi Wahidullah also submitted that his client has already deposited 50% of the decretal money amounting to Taka 8,37,229.01 only before the trial Court on 5-4-99 and this deposit may be accepted as sufficient compliance of the provision of section 7 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain. Admittedly the decree was passed on 30-11-98 and the appeal was tendered on 15-2-99. The law provides that such deposit must be made within 30 days from the date of the decree. Sub-section (4) of section 7 provides that an appeal without prior deposit of the 50% of decretal amount cannot be entertained. So, it is clear that before tendering an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat Ain the appellant should deposit at least 50% of the decretal amount and then tender the Memorandum of Appeal. But here in the present case it appears that though the decree was passed on 30-11-98 the appellant applied for certified copy of the decree on 25-1-99 which is beyond the period of limitation and the Memorandum of Appeal was tendered on 15-2-99 and the deposit was made on 5-4-99 which is long after the submission of the Memorandum of Appeal. So, this deposit is not in accordance with the provision of Section 7 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain and, as such, the same cannot be construed as proper and legal deposit. So, though the appellant has deposited 50% of the decretal amount on 5-4-99 but this deposit is no deposit in the eye of law. This Ain is a special law having its special period of limitation and when the provision of section 5 of Limitation Act has not been made applicable this Court cannot extend the period of limitation and we hold that the subsequent deposit is no deposit in the eye of law and, as such, the Memorandum of Appeal cannot be entertained.
In view of the above we hold that this Memorandum of Appeal has not been tendered within the provision of section 7 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain. The Petition of Appeal is therefore rejected summarily.