High Court Division :
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Farah Mahbub J
Kazi Md Ejarul Haque
Akondo J
Dutch Bangl Bank
Limited ………Petitioner
vs
Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No.3, Dhaka and others …………. Respondents
Judgment
July 2nd, 2015
Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of 2003)
Section 33(2ga)
If it has been informed by the decree holder bank that the proposed bid offer is shockingly low the Adalat upon endorsing the reason thereof may reject .the proposal of the highest bidder.
In the present case, such reason is absolutely absent for the Adalat has accepted the highest bid in spite of objection being raised by the decree-holder bank observing, interalia, ????? ????? ????????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????????? ???? ?? ?-?-???? ??????? ????????? ??-?????? ??? ???? Thus it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed by the executing Adalat in derogation the requirement as prescribed under Section 33(2ga) of the requirement as prescribed under Section 22 (2ga) of the Ain, 2003.
Md Farrukh Rahman, Advocate-For the Petitioner.
None appears-For the Respondents.
Judgment
Farah Mahbub J : In this Rule, issued under Article 102 of the Constitution of 4-2-2013 and order No.6 dated 10-2-2013 respectively passed by Artha Rin Adalat No.3, Dhaka in Artha Execution Case No. 154 of 2012 rejecting the application of the petitioner-bank for cancelling the auction sale on the ground that the bid price was shockingly low, should not be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and hence, is of no legal effect.
2. Facts, in brief, are that in order to recover the defaulted loan amount to the tune of Taka 142,768,375.09 the petitioner-bank instituted Artha Rin Suit No.4 of 2010 before the Artha Rin Adalat No.3, Dhaka on 11-1-2011 impleading the respondents concern, who were· the defaulted loanees. The defendants duly appeared and contested the suit by filling written statement. However, at the time of recording evidence the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not appear. Subsequently, the suit was decreed ex-parte by the Adalat concern vide judgment and decree dated 10-7-2007.
The judgment debtors having failed to payoff the decretal amount within the prescribed period of time as stipulated in the judgment and decree the decree holder bank filed Artha Execution Case No. 154 of 2012 before the executing Adalat for recovery of the decretal amount to the tune of Taka 24,06,94170.70 (Annexure-B). The Adalat duly issued summons as required under Section 30 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. On the expiry of the period as prescribed in the notice debtors as security to the loan amount, as described in the schedule of the execution case under Section 33(1) of the Ain, 2003.
Accordingly, 5 (five) bidders participated in the bid. The highest bidder, however, offered Taka 4,74,95,250. Since the offer was substantially low comparing to the present market price the decree holder bank raised objection upon making an application under Section 33(2ga) of the Ain, 2003 before the executing Adalat for cancellation of the bid, Upon hearing the decree-holder bank, the Adalat fixed 10-2-2013 for order.
However, on 10-2-2013 the Adalat rejected the prayer of the petitioner bank so made earlier quoting the reason- ????? ????? ????????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????????? ???? ?? ?-?-???? ??????? ????????? ??-?????? ??? ??? Hence, the application.
3. Mr Md Forrukh Rahman, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner drawing attention to the impugned order No.6 dated 10-22013 submits that the prayer of the petitioner bank to reject the auction bid being shockingly low considering the present market value has been knocked down by the executing Adalat merely on the plea ms??? ????? ????????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????????? ???? ?? ?-?-???? ??????? ????????? ??-?????? ??? ??? without citing any reason whatsoever, which is not only a violation of the mandatory requirement as Hence, he submits that upon making the Rule absolute the said impugned order is liable to be struck down.
4. No one appears on behalf of the respondents concern though on perusal of the office record it appears that the respective notices of the instant Rule Nisi have been duly served upon all the respondents concern and the Rule was ultimately made ready for hearing on 20-1-2014.
5. Considering the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner bank we have gone through the impugned order dated 10-2-2013 passed by the executing Adalat in connection with Artha Execution Case No. 154 of 2010.
6. The main contention of the petitioner in support of the Rule is that the mortgage property, which is a part of the decree, has been sold out by the Artha Rin Adalat as executing Adalat in exercise of power as provided under Section 33(1) of the Ain, 2003 at a shockingly low price in spite of raising objection to that effect by the decree holder bank without citing any reason whatsoever.
7. The impugned order Nos. 5 and 6 dated 10-2-2013 are hereby quoted below-
“?? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ????????? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ????????
??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? =?,??,??,??? ???? ??? ??????=??,??,??? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ??-?-???? ????? ???????? (?) ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? -?,?,? ?? ??????? ????? ?,??,??,??? ???? ???????? ????? ??% ?????? ??,??,??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ?-?-???? ????? ????? ???????? (?) ??? ??? ????? ???? ? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ??,??,??? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ?,??,??,??? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ?,??,??? ???? ????? ????????”
(?) ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ?,??,??,??? ???? ???????? ????? ??% ?????? ??,??,??? ???? ??-?????? ??-??????? ????? ?-?-???? ????? ????????
????????? ???? ??????? ?????? ????????? ????? ????????? ????? ????? ??????? ????????? ???????? ?????? ????? ??-?-???? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ????
????-???????
??
?????? ?????-?
????
?? ??-?-???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????
????????????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????
??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ? ???????? ???? ??????? ????????????? ?? ?-?-?????? ??????? ????????? ?????? ? ??? ?????????? ?????? ??? ??????????? ???? ??? ?? ?-?-???? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????? ???? ??????? ?????? ????????? ????? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????????? ?,??,??,??? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????
?????????? ????????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ????? ?”??? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ????????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ????????? ??????? ??-?????? ?????? ??? ??-?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??-?-?????? ??????? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????????? ???? ?? ?-?-???? ?? ??????? ????????? ??-?????? ??? ???? ???? ?-?-?????? ??????? ????????? ??-?????? ??? ????”
8. On perusal of the orders, as quoted above, it appears that the executing Adalat has accepted the bid of the highest bidder quoting Taka 4,74,95,250 in spite of the objection so raised by the decree holder bank under section 33(2ga) of the Ain, 2003.
(??) ??????????? ????? ??? ????????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??, ??-???? (?) ?? ???? ???????? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ????? ?????????????? ????????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???, ???? ???? ?????, ???? ???????? ?????, ???? ?? ???????? ???????? ????? ???????
9. Vide sub-section 2(ga) of Section 33 it is the requirement of law that of it has been informed by the decree holder bank that the proposed bid offer is shockingly low the Adalat upon endorsing the reason thereof may reject the proposal of the highest bidder. In the present case, such reason is absolutely absent for the Adalat has accepted the highest bid in spite of objection being raised by the decree-holder bank observing inter-alia, ms??? ????? ????????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????????? ???? ?? ?-?-???? ??????? ????????? ??-?????? ??? ???? Thus it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed by the executing Adalat in derogation of the requirement as prescribed under Section 33(2ga) of the Ain, 2003.
10. Considering the above facts and circumstances, observations and findings we find substance in the instant Rule and accordingly, this Rule is made absolute.
11. The impugned order No.5 dated 4-2-2013 and order No.6 dated 10-2-2013 respectively passed in connection with Artha Execution Case No. 154 of 2012 by the Artha Rin Adalat No.3, Dhaka are hereby.
12. The executing Adalat is hereby directed to proceed with the process of execution proceedings in strict compliance of law.
There will be no order as to costs.
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Farah Mahbub J
Kazi Md Ejarul Haque
Akondo J
Dutch Bangl Bank
Limited ………Petitioner
vs
Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No.3, Dhaka and others …………. Respondents
Judgment
July 2nd, 2015
Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of 2003)
Section 33(2ga)
If it has been informed by the decree holder bank that the proposed bid offer is shockingly low the Adalat upon endorsing the reason thereof may reject .the proposal of the highest bidder.
In the present case, such reason is absolutely absent for the Adalat has accepted the highest bid in spite of objection being raised by the decree-holder bank observing, interalia, ????? ????? ????????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????????? ???? ?? ?-?-???? ??????? ????????? ??-?????? ??? ???? Thus it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed by the executing Adalat in derogation the requirement as prescribed under Section 33(2ga) of the requirement as prescribed under Section 22 (2ga) of the Ain, 2003.
Md Farrukh Rahman, Advocate-For the Petitioner.
None appears-For the Respondents.
Judgment
Farah Mahbub J : In this Rule, issued under Article 102 of the Constitution of 4-2-2013 and order No.6 dated 10-2-2013 respectively passed by Artha Rin Adalat No.3, Dhaka in Artha Execution Case No. 154 of 2012 rejecting the application of the petitioner-bank for cancelling the auction sale on the ground that the bid price was shockingly low, should not be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and hence, is of no legal effect.
2. Facts, in brief, are that in order to recover the defaulted loan amount to the tune of Taka 142,768,375.09 the petitioner-bank instituted Artha Rin Suit No.4 of 2010 before the Artha Rin Adalat No.3, Dhaka on 11-1-2011 impleading the respondents concern, who were· the defaulted loanees. The defendants duly appeared and contested the suit by filling written statement. However, at the time of recording evidence the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not appear. Subsequently, the suit was decreed ex-parte by the Adalat concern vide judgment and decree dated 10-7-2007.
The judgment debtors having failed to payoff the decretal amount within the prescribed period of time as stipulated in the judgment and decree the decree holder bank filed Artha Execution Case No. 154 of 2012 before the executing Adalat for recovery of the decretal amount to the tune of Taka 24,06,94170.70 (Annexure-B). The Adalat duly issued summons as required under Section 30 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. On the expiry of the period as prescribed in the notice debtors as security to the loan amount, as described in the schedule of the execution case under Section 33(1) of the Ain, 2003.
Accordingly, 5 (five) bidders participated in the bid. The highest bidder, however, offered Taka 4,74,95,250. Since the offer was substantially low comparing to the present market price the decree holder bank raised objection upon making an application under Section 33(2ga) of the Ain, 2003 before the executing Adalat for cancellation of the bid, Upon hearing the decree-holder bank, the Adalat fixed 10-2-2013 for order.
However, on 10-2-2013 the Adalat rejected the prayer of the petitioner bank so made earlier quoting the reason- ????? ????? ????????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????????? ???? ?? ?-?-???? ??????? ????????? ??-?????? ??? ??? Hence, the application.
3. Mr Md Forrukh Rahman, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner drawing attention to the impugned order No.6 dated 10-22013 submits that the prayer of the petitioner bank to reject the auction bid being shockingly low considering the present market value has been knocked down by the executing Adalat merely on the plea ms??? ????? ????????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????????? ???? ?? ?-?-???? ??????? ????????? ??-?????? ??? ??? without citing any reason whatsoever, which is not only a violation of the mandatory requirement as Hence, he submits that upon making the Rule absolute the said impugned order is liable to be struck down.
4. No one appears on behalf of the respondents concern though on perusal of the office record it appears that the respective notices of the instant Rule Nisi have been duly served upon all the respondents concern and the Rule was ultimately made ready for hearing on 20-1-2014.
5. Considering the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner bank we have gone through the impugned order dated 10-2-2013 passed by the executing Adalat in connection with Artha Execution Case No. 154 of 2010.
6. The main contention of the petitioner in support of the Rule is that the mortgage property, which is a part of the decree, has been sold out by the Artha Rin Adalat as executing Adalat in exercise of power as provided under Section 33(1) of the Ain, 2003 at a shockingly low price in spite of raising objection to that effect by the decree holder bank without citing any reason whatsoever.
7. The impugned order Nos. 5 and 6 dated 10-2-2013 are hereby quoted below-
“?? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ????????? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ????????
??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? =?,??,??,??? ???? ??? ??????=??,??,??? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ??-?-???? ????? ???????? (?) ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? -?,?,? ?? ??????? ????? ?,??,??,??? ???? ???????? ????? ??% ?????? ??,??,??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ?-?-???? ????? ????? ???????? (?) ??? ??? ????? ???? ? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ??,??,??? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ?,??,??,??? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ?,??,??? ???? ????? ????????”
(?) ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ?,??,??,??? ???? ???????? ????? ??% ?????? ??,??,??? ???? ??-?????? ??-??????? ????? ?-?-???? ????? ????????
????????? ???? ??????? ?????? ????????? ????? ????????? ????? ????? ??????? ????????? ???????? ?????? ????? ??-?-???? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ????
????-???????
??
?????? ?????-?
????
?? ??-?-???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????
????????????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????
??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ? ???????? ???? ??????? ????????????? ?? ?-?-?????? ??????? ????????? ?????? ? ??? ?????????? ?????? ??? ??????????? ???? ??? ?? ?-?-???? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????? ???? ??????? ?????? ????????? ????? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????????? ?,??,??,??? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????
?????????? ????????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ????? ?”??? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ????????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ????????? ??????? ??-?????? ?????? ??? ??-?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??-?-?????? ??????? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????????? ???? ?? ?-?-???? ?? ??????? ????????? ??-?????? ??? ???? ???? ?-?-?????? ??????? ????????? ??-?????? ??? ????”
8. On perusal of the orders, as quoted above, it appears that the executing Adalat has accepted the bid of the highest bidder quoting Taka 4,74,95,250 in spite of the objection so raised by the decree holder bank under section 33(2ga) of the Ain, 2003.
(??) ??????????? ????? ??? ????????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??, ??-???? (?) ?? ???? ???????? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ????? ?????????????? ????????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???, ???? ???? ?????, ???? ???????? ?????, ???? ?? ???????? ???????? ????? ???????
9. Vide sub-section 2(ga) of Section 33 it is the requirement of law that of it has been informed by the decree holder bank that the proposed bid offer is shockingly low the Adalat upon endorsing the reason thereof may reject the proposal of the highest bidder. In the present case, such reason is absolutely absent for the Adalat has accepted the highest bid in spite of objection being raised by the decree-holder bank observing inter-alia, ms??? ????? ????????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????????? ???? ?? ?-?-???? ??????? ????????? ??-?????? ??? ???? Thus it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed by the executing Adalat in derogation of the requirement as prescribed under Section 33(2ga) of the Ain, 2003.
10. Considering the above facts and circumstances, observations and findings we find substance in the instant Rule and accordingly, this Rule is made absolute.
11. The impugned order No.5 dated 4-2-2013 and order No.6 dated 10-2-2013 respectively passed in connection with Artha Execution Case No. 154 of 2012 by the Artha Rin Adalat No.3, Dhaka are hereby.
12. The executing Adalat is hereby directed to proceed with the process of execution proceedings in strict compliance of law.
There will be no order as to costs.
