Monday, October 22, 2018 | ePaper

Interest can't be reduced or waived by the court of law

  • Print
High Court Division :
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Mamnoon Rahman  J
Md Abu Zafor Siddique J

Sonali Bank .............
.......................Appellant
vs
Md Lutfor Rahman and others ................
.......... Respondents
Judgment
February 9th, 2012

Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of 2003)
Section 50
Imposition of interest cannot be reduced or waived by the Court of law in any manner. The Court is to accept the rate of interest and other issues fixed by the financial institution.
...... (6)

Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of 2003)
Section 47
The legislature imposed restriction on the claim to the tune that a financial institution in no way can demand any interest more than 200%. . ..... (6)
ABM Bayezid, Advocate-For the Appellant.
None appears-For the Respondents.

Judgment
Md Abu Zafor Siddique J : This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3-4-1996 passed by the Artha Rin Adalat, Naogaon in Artha Rin Suit No. 196 of 1991 decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs appellant.
2. The appellant on the basis of the application made by the defendant sanctioned credit facility to the tune of Taka 12 lakh vide sanction letter dated 23-1-1984 for which the defendant borrower executed registered mortgage of the property belonged to the borrower. Thereafter on different occasions the defendant borrower failed to adjust the credit facility for which the bank served legal notice and ultimately filed the Artha Rin Suit No. 196 of 1991. The defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 6 9 contested the suit by filing separate written statement. The defendant in their written statement denied the material allegation made in the plaint. The Court below proceeded with the suit and ultimately on 3-4-1996 decreed the suit in the following terms:
আদেশ
অত্র মোকাদ্দমা একতরফা সূত্রে খরচায় ২৬,৬৫,০৭৮.২৭ (ছাব্বিশ লক্ষ পয়ষট্টি হাজার আটাত্তর টাকা সাতাশ পয়সার) ডিক্রি হইল। অত্র মোকাদ্দমা দায়ের এর হইতে ডিক্রির টাকা আদায় ১০% সুদে ডিক্রি দেওয়া হইল। অত্র আদেশের ষাট দিনের মধ্যে বিবাদী ডিক্রির টাকা পরিশোধিত না করিলে আদালত যোগে আদায় করা যাইবে।
স্বা/-অপাঠ্য
মোঃ আব্দুল হামিদ
সাব জজ, অর্থঋণ আদালত, নওগাঁ।
3. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the instant appeal before this Court.
4. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent to oppose the appeal.
5. Mr ABM Bayezid, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff appellant submits that the Court below without applying its judicial mind and without considering the facts and circumstances and the material specially the sanction letter as well as the other papers and documents most illegally and in an arbitrary manner passed the impugned judgment and decree wherein the Court below allowed an interest to the tune of 10% instead of 20% as claimed by the bank. He submits that admittedly the plaint/sanction letter was amended without any objection by the defendant wherein the interest rate was raised and as such as per the contract namely the sanction letter the borrower defendant is liable to pay interest at the rate of 20%. He submits that the money due to the defendants are public money and the borrower failed to adjust the same and as such the Court below erred in law in imposing interest at the rate of 10% despite the provision of imposing interest at the rate of 20% as per the sanction letter as well as the Bangladesh Bank direction.
6. We have heard the learned Advocate, perused the Memorandum of Appeal, impugned judgment and decree and LC record. Admittedly the Bank appellant sanctioned credit facility in favour of the defendant for business purpose to the tune of Taka 12 lakh Admittedly the predecessor of the defendant failed to adjust the credit facility for which the Bank instituted the suit. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement wherein the defendant Nos. 1-5 in their written statement raised specific objection regarding the manner of imposition of interest as well as its rate and applicability. However the Court below decreed the suit exparte. The main contention as raised by the appellant is that the Court below while imposing interest reduced the same from the agreed amount. It appears from the sanction letter as evident in exhibit 1 that 5-1/2 % above bank rate minimum 60% per annum with quarterly rest subject to application for penal interest due to unsatisfactory contract of the above. However it appears from the L, C record that in the said sanction letter there is over a riding and another set discloses as 4% to 14 1/2%. It also appears that the original borrower died and subsequently the predecessor of the borrower contested the suit. It also appears from the LC record that the predecessor in interest of the defendant respondent approached the bank for waiver of the interest on the plea of deposition of Taka 8,81,125  Taka 5,000 as well as Taka 50,000. It further appears that while decreeing the suit, the Court below also considered this aspect. The Act 4 of 1990 was enacted for the purpose to realization of loan of the financial institution. Subsequently the same was amended in the year 2003. On perusal of the provision as laid down in the act of 2003 namely Section 50 it appears that the imposition of interest cannot be reduced or waived by the Court of law in any manner. The Court is to accept the rate of interest and other issues fixed by the financial institution. But on perusal of the Act of 1990 we do not find any such provision which shows that the Court while decreeing the suit cannot consider the imposition of interest and other issues. Admittedly in the present suit, the Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff Bank for the full loan amount as well as 10% interest. Though the Act of 2003 came much later but in Section 47 of the present Act, the legislature imposed restriction on the claim to the tune that a financial institution in no way can demand any interest more than 200%.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal.
8. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
Send down the LC record with a copy of the judgment at once.

More News For this Category

Imposition of legal duty enjoins legal right

High Court Division (Special Original Jurisdiction) Md Ashfaqul Islam J Md Ashraful Kamal J JudgmentFebruary 23th, 2014.Freight ManagementLimited..........PetitionervsBangladesh Bank and others. RespondentsConstitution of Bangladesh, 1972Article 102(2)(a)(i)Writ of Mandamus-A writ of

An accused cannot be compelled to be witness against himself

(From previous issue) (a) for the purpose of investigating an offence under Sections 403, 406, 408 and 409 and Sections 421 to 424 (both inclusive) and Sections 465 to 477 A

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