United Leather International Vs. Artha Rin Adalat and others, VI ADC (2009) 978

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1561 of 2008

Judge: Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. S. N. Goswami,,

Citation: VI ADC (2009) 978

Case Year: 2009

Appellant: United Leather International

Respondent: Artha Rin Adalat and others

Subject: Artha Rin,

Delivery Date: 2009-07-23

Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J
Md. Joynul Abedin J
Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman J
 
M/S. United Leather International
………….........Petitioner
Vs.
Artha Rin Adalat and others
………….........Respondents
 
Judgment
July 23, 2009.      
 
Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
Section 12(2),  57
Artha Rin Case rejecting the application filed under Sections 12 (2) and 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 praying for adjustment of the outstanding loan with the sale price of the pledged goods and thereby to fix the actual claim amount in the suit. …… (2)
Section 12(6) of the Ain, 2003 provides that the Artha Rin Adalat on its own initiative or on the basis of the application of the borrower can deduct the value of the goods shown, any, by the borrower at the time of decreeing the suit. In the instant case, the value of the pledged goods, if any may be considered by the Court at the time of passing decree. ….. (4)
 
Lawyers Involved:
S. N. Goswami, Advocate, instructed by Syed Mahbubur Rahman, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
Not represented-the Respondents.
 
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1561 of 2008.
(From the judgment and order dated 01.07.2008 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 8047 of 2005.)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman J.
 
1. Instant leave petition under Article 103 of the Constitution is for granting leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 01.07.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.8047 of 2005 by the High Court Division discharging the Rule.
 
2. The Writ Petition No.8047 of 2005 arises against the impugned order No.44 dated 25.10.2005 passed in Artha Rin Case No.86 of 2005 by the learned Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka, rejecting the applica­tion filed under Sections 12(2) and 51 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 praying for adjustment of the outstanding loan with the sale price of the pledged goods and thereby to fix the actual claim amount in the suit.
 
3. The respondent-bank filed Title Suit No. 531 of 2003 for realization of its out­standing dues from the plaintiffs, of which the leave petitioner hereof is the plaintiff No.1 in the suit, amounting to Tk. 2,89,81,635.51/- as of 30.04.2003, through sale of the mortgaged property and that the suit is being contested and that during the recording of deposition of P.W.1 on 25.10.2005 the leave petitioner filed an application under Sections 12(2) and 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 praying for a direction upon the plaintiff-bank for sale of the pledged goods and to adjust the claim amount with the sale proceeds of the pledged goods and fix the actual claim amount and that the Artha Rin Adalat by its Order No. 44 dated 25.10.2005 rejected   the application observing that examination of the wit­nesses are being in progress and that the provision for sale of the pledge goods before filing of the suit was not in the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 and the said provision has been provided in Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and that the suit has been filed prior to promulgation of Artha Rin Adalat, 2003 and thus there is no bar in proceeding with the suit without sale of the pledged goods and adjustment of the sale proceeds thereof with the claim amount in the suit.
 
4. Being aggrieved the defendant-leave petitioner moved the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.8047 of 2005 and the Rule issued thereon has been discharged by the impugned judg­ment and order, after hearing the parties, observing, amongst others, that:-
"It is evident from the plaint, of the Artha Rin Adalat Suit that the suit was instituted on 03.04.2003 and Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, came into force on 01.05.2003 i.e. the suit was instituted before the enactment of the Ain, 2003. It has been argued by the respondent bank that the pres­ent petitioner has been contesting the suit by filing written statement but no assertion has been made therein as to pledged goods in the godown of the bank. Moreover, sec­tion 12(6) of the Ain, 2003 provides that the Artha Rin Adalat on its own initiative or on the basis of the appli­cation of the borrower can deduct the value of the goods shown, any, by the borrower at the time of decreeing the suit. In the instant case, the value of the pledged goods, if any may be considered by the Court at the time of passing decree. Furthermore; respondent No.2 in its affidavit-in-opposition has annexed a letter written by the petitioner wherein he stated to the effect:
 
“এখানে বিশেষ ভাবে উল্লেখযোগ্য যে, আমাদের প্লেজ গোডাউনের সম্পূর্ণ মালামাল দীর্ঘদিন গুদামজাত ছিল তা দীর্ঘদিন গুদামজাত থাকার কারনে সম্পূর্ণ চামড়া নষ্ট হয়ে গেছে। গোডাউনের ইটের দেয়ালে নোনা ধরে ফাটলের সৃস্টি হয়েছে এবং উপরের টিনের চালা মরিচা ধরে ফুটো হয়ে যাওয়ায় সহসা বৃস্টির পানি ঢুকে পড়ে। ফলে গোডাউনের চারিপার্শ্বে দুর্গন্ধ ছড়াচ্ছে । এমন কি যে কোন মুহূর্তে ভেঙ্গে যেতে পারে এবং পার্শ্ববর্তী ট্যানারী মালিকগন অবিলম্বে গুদাম পরিস্কার করার অনুরোধ করেছেন। বিধায় আপনাদের তত্তাবধানে উক্ত গোডাউনের নষ্ট চামড়া অপসারন করার জন্য বিশেষ ভাবে অনুরোধ করছি। যাতে করে পরিবেশ দূষণ বন্ধ সহ ভবিষৎতে ব্যবসা চালু করার লক্ষ্যে গোডাউনের প্রয়োজনীয় মেরামত করতে পারি তার বিহীত বিধান করার আজ্ঞা হয়।"
 
From the contents of the aforesaid letter it is also clear that there is nothing to be sold out. It is also a fact that though the suit was filed on 03.04.2003 the application for sell­ing out the pledged goods was filed only after cross examination of P.W.1 in part.

From the impugned order it appears that the learned Judge of the Artha Rin Adalat has rejected the prayer of the defendant for selling out the alleged pledged goods considering the facts and the provisions of law as discussed above and thus it acted within the bounds of law and as such the impugned order cannot be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect, consequently we find no merit in the rule.
 
5. We have considered the contents of the leave petition and the submissions of the learned Advocate appearing for the leave petitioner. The learned Advocate persuaded us to consider the provisions of Section 12(2) and 12(6) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and submitted that it is necessary to adjust the loan out­standing amount with the sale proceeds of the pledged goods in the instant case and thus to fix the actual claim amount on adjustment as aforesaid.
 
6. On consideration of the facts and cir­cumstances of the case and the submis­sions of the learned Advocate as well as the provision of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 particularly Section 12(2) and 12(6) read with Sections 57 and 60 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and the reasoning’s given by the Artha Rin Adalat as appearing in the impugned order, we are of the view that the High Court Division has correctly interpreted the law and passed the order in accordance with law, which do not call for any interference. We do not find any merit in this leave petition.
 
7. Accordingly, the petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.
 
Ed.