(From previous issue) :
On perusal of the cross examination of the PW 1 it appears that the shipping agent was appointed by the bank and in his cross examination PW I failed to assert the steps taken by the shipping agent appointed by them in due course. It further appears from the cross examination that apart from Taka.20,000 deposited earlier, the bank received Taka. 1,20,000 further amount from the auction proceed. While adjudicating the suit the Court held as follows;
“???? ???????? ?????? ??? ???????? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???????? ????? ????? ????? ??, ????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??š’ ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????”???? ??????? ????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????????? ???? ?????????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ???? ??¯’?? ?????? ? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ??¯?’? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??% ????? ??? ???? ???????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?? ???, ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ??% ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??? ??, ????????? ???? ?,??,??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??????”
7. It appears that considering the facts and circumstances and the failure on the part of the bank’s agent the Court considered the interest and other charges. On perusal of the provision laid down in the Act 4 of 1990 it appears that there is no bar upon the Court below in dealing with the matter relating to interest in any manner which however in the present Act is a mandatory one. In the case reported in 37 DLR (AD) 1. The Court held as follows;
“From the provisions of this section it appears that the Court has been empowered to grant interest form the date of the suit to the date of the decree and then on the full amount which includes the amount claimed on the date of the suit and the interest thereon granted by the Court for the aforesaid period.
Further, the section provides for award of interest on the aggregate sum till the date of realisation or an earlier date. It appears that the grant of interest form the date of the suit to the date of the decree and then form the date of the decree till realisation is matter of descreation of the Court, This also find support form the opinions expressed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Bipradas pal Chowdhury vs Kamaini Kumar Lahiri, AIR 1922 PC 48 alld Lala Hakim Rai vs Lala Ganga Ram, AIR 1942 PC 61″
The Court further held:
“The next question comes as to whether the Court will grant any interest on this amount for the period beginning form 13-1271 to filing of the suit on 29-12-74. As the company came under total disability in the matter of operating its business as well as the Bank accounts for no fault for its own, it can legitimately ask for not granting any interest on the aforesaid outstanding dues for this period. It has been seen that the Bank also did not take any steps for clarifying its position regarding the repayment for the loan either form the company or form the Government during this period which’ it ought to have. We are, therefore, not in favour of awarding any interest for this period.
9. So it appears from the aforesaid judgment that the Court of law enjoys ample authority under the previous law to impose interest but at the same time the Court of law is to apply its judicial mind on the given facts and circumstances. In the present case in hand while decreeing the suit in favour applied its judicial mind and deducted the interest and charges considering the special circumstances relating to the import and negligence on the part of the bank’s appointed shipping agent, Considering the facts and circumstances, we find no reason to interfere. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed without any order as to cost.
Send down the LC record with a copy of the judgment at once.
On perusal of the cross examination of the PW 1 it appears that the shipping agent was appointed by the bank and in his cross examination PW I failed to assert the steps taken by the shipping agent appointed by them in due course. It further appears from the cross examination that apart from Taka.20,000 deposited earlier, the bank received Taka. 1,20,000 further amount from the auction proceed. While adjudicating the suit the Court held as follows;
“???? ???????? ?????? ??? ???????? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???????? ????? ????? ????? ??, ????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??š’ ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????”???? ??????? ????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????????? ???? ?????????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ???? ??¯’?? ?????? ? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ??¯?’? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??% ????? ??? ???? ???????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?? ???, ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ??% ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??? ??, ????????? ???? ?,??,??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??????”
7. It appears that considering the facts and circumstances and the failure on the part of the bank’s agent the Court considered the interest and other charges. On perusal of the provision laid down in the Act 4 of 1990 it appears that there is no bar upon the Court below in dealing with the matter relating to interest in any manner which however in the present Act is a mandatory one. In the case reported in 37 DLR (AD) 1. The Court held as follows;
“From the provisions of this section it appears that the Court has been empowered to grant interest form the date of the suit to the date of the decree and then on the full amount which includes the amount claimed on the date of the suit and the interest thereon granted by the Court for the aforesaid period.
Further, the section provides for award of interest on the aggregate sum till the date of realisation or an earlier date. It appears that the grant of interest form the date of the suit to the date of the decree and then form the date of the decree till realisation is matter of descreation of the Court, This also find support form the opinions expressed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Bipradas pal Chowdhury vs Kamaini Kumar Lahiri, AIR 1922 PC 48 alld Lala Hakim Rai vs Lala Ganga Ram, AIR 1942 PC 61″
The Court further held:
“The next question comes as to whether the Court will grant any interest on this amount for the period beginning form 13-1271 to filing of the suit on 29-12-74. As the company came under total disability in the matter of operating its business as well as the Bank accounts for no fault for its own, it can legitimately ask for not granting any interest on the aforesaid outstanding dues for this period. It has been seen that the Bank also did not take any steps for clarifying its position regarding the repayment for the loan either form the company or form the Government during this period which’ it ought to have. We are, therefore, not in favour of awarding any interest for this period.
9. So it appears from the aforesaid judgment that the Court of law enjoys ample authority under the previous law to impose interest but at the same time the Court of law is to apply its judicial mind on the given facts and circumstances. In the present case in hand while decreeing the suit in favour applied its judicial mind and deducted the interest and charges considering the special circumstances relating to the import and negligence on the part of the bank’s appointed shipping agent, Considering the facts and circumstances, we find no reason to interfere. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed without any order as to cost.
Send down the LC record with a copy of the judgment at once.
