Wednesday, October 17, 2018 | ePaper

BREAKING NEWS:

Auction of mortgaged property be made first

  • Print
(From previous issue) :
8. The. only question that calls for consideration by us in this Writ Petition is whether· under the governing law and the decisions of the Appellate Division and this Division the impugned order would sustain.
9. At the very outset it would be worthwhile to address the first part of the Rule which relates to improper service of summons being affected in violation of Section 30 of the Ain. Before addressing the issue it is to be noted that the suit was decreed ex parte and the petitioner did not proceed for setting aside the ex parte decree in terms of Section 19 and subjected himself to the execution proceeding. Now when the order of warrant of arrest was issued he has jumped upon this Division under Article 102 of the Constitution mainly assailing the impugned order of warrant of arrest by bringing an analogy of violation of Section 30, Section 6(5) second proviso and even Section 7 (which is the procedure for service of summons in respect of trial) of the Ain. In the case of Provat Kumar as referred to above the Appellate Division in clear terms observed:
"We have perused the application and heard the learned Advocate. The learned Advocate appearing for the leave petitioner submitted that the provision of Section 33 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 having not been complied with, the order for civil imprisonment under Section 34 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 was bad in the eye of law and the High Court Division arrived at its decision in not considering such aspect of law and that the Artha Rin Adalat passed the order for civil imprisonment ex parte without providing any opportunity of hearing to the judgment debtor the writ Petitioner, which is ex facie a violation of the principle of natural justice and thus the High Court Division acted illegality in passing, the impugned order.  "We have perused the leave petition and considered the submissions of the learned Advocate. We have also perused the provisions of Sections 33 and 34 of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. It appears that Section 34 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 is clear and provides for ordering civil imprisonment lip to 6 months against a judgment-debtor for compelling to satisfy the decree. Section 34 is not dependent upon Section 33. In the instant case, the decree holder has taken' step for auction sale of the property but there being no response, auction sale could not be held. Further, it appears from the provisions of Section 34 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 that the law provides for simple civil imprisonment of the judgment-debtor to compel to make the payment for satisfaction of the decree and is not an alternative punishment in lien of payment of the decretal amount. Civil imprisonment will not exempt payment of the decretal amount."
১০. ঞযব ঢ়ৎড়ঢ়ড়ংরঃরড়হ ঃযধঃ ষধরফ ফড়হি নু ঃযব অঢ়ঢ়বষষধঃব উরারংরড়হ রং বিষষ ংবঃঃষবফ. ইু হড়ি ঃযরং উরারংরড়হ ভড়ষষড়বিফ ঃযব ংধসব ঢ়ৎরহপরঢ়ষব রহ সধহু ধ ফবপরংরড়হং. ঞযব ষবধৎহবফ পড়ঁহংবষ ধঢ়ঢ়বধৎরহম ভড়ৎ ঃযব ৎবংঢ়ড়হফবহঃ-নধহশ যধং পরঃবফ ঃযড়ংব ফবপরংরড়হং ধং য়ঁড়ঃবফ ধনড়াব. ঞযব ঢ়রঃয ধহফ ংঁনংঃধহপব ড়ভ ঃযব ফবপরংরড়হং রং ঃযধঃ ড়ৎফবৎ ড়ভ ধিৎৎধহঃ ড়ভ ধৎৎবংঃ রং হড়ঃ ধ ঢ়ঁহরংযসবহঃ নঁঃ ড়হষু ধ ংঢ়বপরভরপ ঃড়ড়ষ ভড়ৎ ৎবপড়াবৎু ড়ভ ড়ঁঃংঃধহফরহম ফঁবং. ঞযব ষধি রং বিষষ ংবঃঃষবফ যিরপয রং হড় ষড়হমবৎ ধ ৎবং রহঃবমৎধ. ঝবপঃরড়হ ৩৪(৯) ড়ভ অরহ বহলড়রহং ঃযধঃ ধঃ ষবধংঃ ড়হব ধঃঃবসঢ়ঃ ংযড়ঁষফ নব সধফব ভড়ৎ ধঁপঃরড়হ রভ ঃযবৎব রং ধহু সড়ৎঃমধমবফ ঢ়ৎড়ঢ়বৎঃু নবভড়ৎব রংংঁধহপব ড়ভ ড়ৎফবৎ ড়ভ ধিৎৎধহঃ ড়ভ ধৎৎবংঃ. ওভ হড় ঢ়ৎড়ঢ়বৎঃু রং সড়ৎঃমধমবফ ঃযবহ ঝবপঃরড়হ ৩৪(১০) পড়সবং রহঃড় ঢ়ষধু যিরপয বহলড়রহং:
“যদি কোন কারণে উপ-ধারা (৯) এর অধীন একটিও নিলাম বিক্রয় কার্যক্রম অনুষ্ঠান করা সম্ভব না হয়, তবে সেই ক্ষেত্রে দায়িককে সরাসরি গ্রেফতার ও দেওয়ানী কারাগারে আটক করা যাইবে।”
১১. ঙহ ঢ়বৎঁংরহম ঃযব ঢ়ষধরহঃ ড়ভ ঃযব পধংব অহহবীঁৎব- 'অ' ঃড় ঃযব ঢ়বঃরঃরড়হ বি যধাব ভড়ঁহফ ঃযধঃ হড় ঢ়ৎড়ঢ়বৎঃু ধিং সড়ৎঃমধমবফ ধং পড়ষষধঃবৎধষ ংবপঁৎরঃু রিঃয ঃযব নধহশ. ঞযবৎবভড়ৎব, ঃযব রহংঃধহঃ পধংব ংয়ঁধৎবষু পড়সবং রিঃযরহ ঃযব সরংপযরবভ ড়ভ ঝবপঃরড়হ ৩৪ (১০) ড়ভ ঃযব অরহ. ঝবপড়হফষু ড়হ পড়হংরফবৎধঃরড়হ ড়ভ ষবমধষ রহঃবৎঢ়ৎবঃধঃরড়হ ড়ভ ঝবপঃরড়হ ৬(৫) ংবপড়হফ ঢ়ৎড়ারংড় ড়ভ ঃযব অরহ রহ ফবপরফরহম ঃযব পড়হঃবহঃরড়হ ঢ়ৎবংংবফ রহঃড় ংবৎারপব নু ঃযব ষবধৎহবফ পড়ঁহংবষ ভড়ৎ ঃযব ঢ়বঃরঃরড়হবৎ ষবঃ ধং ভরৎংঃ ৎবধফ ঃযব ষধি ধং রঃ ংঃধহফং:-
“৬(৫) ................এবং আদালত কর্তৃক প্রদত্ত রায়, আদেশ বা ডিক্রী সকল বিবাদীর বিরুদ্ধে যৌথভাবে ও প"থক প"থকভাবে (ঔড়রহঃষু ধহফ ংবাবৎধষষু) কার্যকর হইবে এবং ডিক্রী জারীর মামলা সকল বিবাদী-দায়িকের বিরুদ্ধে একই সাথে পরিচালিত হইবে ঃ
তবে শর্ত থাকে যে, ডিক্রী জারীর মাধ্যমে দাবী আদায় হওয়ার ক্ষেত্রে আদালত প্রথমে মূল ঋণগ্রহীতা বিবাদীর এবং অতঃপর যথাক্রমে তৃতীয় পক্ষ বন্ধকদাতা (ঞযরৎফ ঢ়ধৎঃু সড়ৎঃমধমড়ৎ) ও তৃতীয় পক্ষ গ্যারান্টর (ঞযরৎফ ঢ়ধৎঃু মঁধৎধহঃড়ৎ) এর সম্পত্তি যতদূর সম্ভব আকৃষ্ট করিবে ঃ
Our view is very much clear on that point. The petitioner being a guarantor is not at all absolved from the liability and question of application of the said section is redundant since no property has been mortgaged with the bank.
12. The petitioner is only a guarantor for all practical purpose. The legal position of a guarantor under law has been enumerated in Section 128 of the Contract Act which governs the field in it's strict implication. To dispel any ambiguity on the proposition of law regarding a guarantor Section 128 of the contract Act quoted below. It enjoins:
"Surety's liability-The liability of the surety is coextensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract. "
13. In the Case of .MM Ispahani Ltd vs Sonali Bank (1984) BLD (AD) 242 = 37 DLR (AD) I it was decided that:
"The guarantor is not only responsible for repayment of the loan, his liability to repay need not even be postponed till the principal debtor fails to repay the loan- He may be compelled before even compelling the principal debtor to repay - The choice lies with the creditor."
14. High Court Division also held in the same manner in Sonali Bank vs Hare Krishna Das, 49 DLR 282 that the liability of the principal debtor is co-extensive with that of the guarantor. A creditor is at Liberty to pursue either the principal debtor or the guarantor according to his sweet will for realization of his dues or he can proceed against both of them simultaneously.
15. The extent of liability of the guarantor to repay the loan as aforesaid has also been well reflected in the earlier decision of Privy Council in Mahanth Singh vs UBa Yi AIR 1939 PC 11, where the creditor's claim to sue the principal debtor became barred by limitation, it was held that the guarantor was liable to pay.
16. The same principle has also been echoed in the decision of Indian Supreme Court in the Bank of Hiber Ltd vs Damodar Prasad, AIR 1969 SC 297.
17. Moreover, Bank Company Act  1991 also by an amendment in the year 2013 amended Section 5(GaGa) of the Act and included guarantor as a defaulter which can be perceived when read with section 5(Q) of the Act. Amended Section 5GaGa of the Act says -    “৫(গগ) খেলাপী ঋণ গ্রহীতা অর্থ কোন দেনাদার ব্যক্তি বা প্রতিষ্ঠান ..........।”
18. Then Section-5 (Cha) enjoins-
“৫(ছ) দেনাদার অর্থ লাভ ক্ষতির ভাগাভাগি, খরিদ বা ইজারার ভিত্তিতে বা অন্য কোনভাবে আর্থিক সুযোগ সুবিধা গ্রহণকারী ব্যক্তি কোম্পানী বা প্রতিষ্ঠান এবং কোন জামিনদাi (guarantor) ও ইহার অন্তর্ভুক্ত হইবে।” "ঞherefore, even on that score the argument of the petitioner falls apart.
19. So far the argument as regard non compliance of Section 30 of the Ain let us first quote the law for better understanding:
“ নোটিশ জারী সম্পর্কিত বিধান। আপাতত বলবৎ অন্য কোন আইনে যাহা কিছুই াকুক না কেন, ডিক্রিদার আদালতের জারীকারক কর্তৃক এবং প্রাপ্তি স্বীকারসহ রেজিষ্ট্রিকৃত ডাকযোগে প্রেরণের নিমিত্ত, জারীর দরখাস্তের সহিত নোটিশ জারীর জন্য সমুদয় তলবনা আদালতে দাখিল করিবেন, এবং আদালত অবিলম্বে উহাদের ডাকযোগে জারীর ব্যব¯'া করিবেন, এবং যদি সমন ইস্যুর ১৫ (পনের) দিবসের মধ্যে জারী হইয়া ফেরত না আসে, অথবা তৎপূর্বেই বিনা জারীতে ফেরত আসে, তাহা হইলে আদালত উহার পরবর্তী ১৫ (পনের) দিবসের মধ্যে বাদীর খরচায় যে কোন একটি বহুল প্রচারিত বাংলা জাতীয দৈনিক পত্রিকা এবং তদুপরি ন্যায় বিচারের স্বার্থে প্রয়োজনীয় মনে করিলে ¯'ানীয় একটি পত্রিকা, যদি থাকে, বিজ্ঞাপন প্রকাশের মাধ্যমে সমন জারী করাইবেন, এবং অনুরূপ জারী আইনানুগ জারী মর্মে গণ্য হইবে।”
20. Section 30 of the Ain provides for publication of the name of the Incumbent in a widely circulated newspapers in the instant case the publication was made in "Dainik Banik Barta" which, as the learned counsel submits. is not at all a widely circulated Journal. There is no court fixed to judge which one of the journals is to be treated as widely circulated one and which is not. The question of deciding the score of issuing order of warrant of arrest would not under and on the provisions of Section 30 of the Ain. The ratio decidendi of the Appellate Division in the Provat Kumar's case and the subsequent decisions of this Division as referred to above also approve the said proposition. Section 34 of the Ain is an independent section making provisions for issuing order of warrant of arrest in a fit case.
21. We hold that everything was perfected in terms of express provision of Ain and the order impugned against was passed absolutely in accordance with law. The argument pressed into service by the petitioner from different angle questioning the propriety of the order of issuing warrant of arrest therefore, does not have any legs to stand and for  that reason the Rule should be discharged being devoid of any substance.
(Side linings and under linings are mine)
22. That being the position we are of the view that this Rule should be discharged.
23. In the result, the Rule is discharged without any order as to cost. The order of stay granted earlier by this court is hereby recalled and vacated.
Communicate at once.

More News For this Category

An accused cannot be compelled to be witness against himself

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) M Enayetur Rahim JShahidul Karim J Kazi Md Shahed ..........Ahmed .............Accused-PetitionervsState and others     ....... Opposite-PartiesJudgmentAugust 1st, 2017Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 Article 35(4)

Properties of principal borrower should come first for recovery of bank's dues

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Sheikh Hassan Arif JMd Badruzzaman JElite Iron and Steel GP Sheet Ltd and others .... Petitioners vsJudge, Artha Rin Adalat, 4th Court, Dhaka

Upholding the rule of natural justice

Appellate Division : (Civil) Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah  JMd Imman Ali   J AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury  JChairman, Rural Electrification Board at present (Bangladesh Rural electrification Board) Dhaka-----------Petitioner                            VsMaziruddin Ahmed Khan

Criminal case stands for the offence, civil suit for realisation of money

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) Syed Md Ziaul Karim J Md Akram Hossain Chowdhury J Judgment July 2nd, 2018 Moinul Hoque Chowdhury and another.…….Accused-Petitioners                   vs State and

Claim over ownership of waqf property!

Appellate Division :(Civil) Abdul Wahhab Miah JMd Imman Ali JHasan Foez Siddique JJudgmentAugust 17th, 2017Hafizuddin (Md) ....................Appellantvs Mozaffor Mridha and others ... RespondentsBengal Waqf Act (XIll of 1934) Section 70(1)(4)

Grounds for rejection of plaint

High Court Division :(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction) Sharif Uddin Chaklader           JKhizir Ahmed Chowdhury      J Eastern Housing Ltd. ………Petitionervs Ainuddin Haydar and others……Opposite-PartiesJudgment September 3rd, 2015 Code of Civil Procedure (V

Sentence should commensurate with the gravity of crime

High Court Division :(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction) Zafar Ahmed J  Mahmudul Hasan (Md)  ........Petitioner vsState and another……….Opposite PartiesJudgment August 24th, 2017 Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881) Section 138 The

Arbitration clause of the agreement be tried first

(From previous issue) :In a case such as this we are of opinion the suit is not on the face of it barred by law. The very arguments which

Calculation of interest on decree amount

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction)Zinat Ara JAKM Zahirul Hoque JTopman Fashion WearsLimited..........PetitionervsDutch Bangla Bank Limited and others...............RespondentsJudgmentFebruary 15th, 2017Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of 2003)Section 50(4)Under Section 50(4)

Principle of double jeopardy

(From previous issue) :39. In respect of these material exhibits no suggestion has been given by the defence that these materials are not belonged to the victim of the