The New Nation - Internet Edition

High Court Division

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Nazmun Ara Sultana-J.

Md. Abu Tariq-J.

WRIT PETITION No. 6194 of 2005

(An application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. )

Md. Fazle Kader Mukul ttt..Petitioner.

Vs.

Bangladesh and others ttt.Respondents.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohammad

Imran Jahangir, Advocate,

For the respondent No 3 : Mr. Asad Hossain Chowdhury, Advocate.

Judgment: 11 September, 2007

Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990-

The word "FY" (loan) includes the principal as well as interest, penal interest, etc.

As the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has already decided the controversy with regard to the definition of the word "FY" as given under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 so as to include the principal, interest, penal interest, etc and the impugned order passed by the Artha Rin Adalat having been based on the principle enunciated by the Appellate Division as aforesaid, the learned judges of the High Court Division found nothing to interfere with the same and as such discharged the Rule.

Since it has already been decided by the Appellate Division of this court that the word "FY" defined. in Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 includes interest, penal interest, etc. so we find no wrong or illegality in the impugned orderttt(Para 6)

JUDGMENT

MD. ABU TARIQ-J: This Rule nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the order No, 16 dated 11,4.2004 (Annexure-C) passed by the Artha Rin Adalat No.1, Dhaka in Artha Rin Suit No, 382 of 2004 shall not be declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect and why the respondent No, 2 shall not be directed to strike out the interest, penal interest and other charges from the plaint of that Artha Rin Suit No., 382 of 2004 and/ or such other or further order or orders passed as to this court may seem fit and proper.

2. We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and gone through the writ petition and the papers annexed thereto, The respondent No.3-Sonali Bank, Shilpa Bhaban, Corporate Branch filed the above mentioned Artha Rin Suit against the petitioner for realisation of loan money.

This petitioner appeared in the suit and at one stage filed an application praying for striking out the interest, penal interest and other charges from the plaint contending that since the suit was filed under Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 the plaintiff was not entitled to get any interest, etc as the word "FY" defined in the said Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 does not include interest, penal interest, ete.

3. The learned Judge of the Artha Rin Adalat, after hearing both the parties, rejected the said application of the petitioner observing that the Appellate Division of this court has already decided that the word "FY" as defined in Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 includes interest, penal interest, etc also.

4. Today the learned Advocate Mr. Md. Imran Jahangir appearing for the writ petitioner has frankly conceded before us that it has already been decided by the Appellate Division of this court that the word "FY" as defined in Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 includes interest, penal interest etc also.

The learned Advocate for the writ petitioner has frankly submitted also that' in the circumstances this Rule is liable to be discharged.

5. After the above frank admission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner himself there remains no necessity of further discussion at all.

6. Since it has already been decided by the Appellate Division of this court that the word "FY" defined in Art/w Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 includes interest, penal interest, etc. so we find no wrong or illegality in the impugned order.

7. In this circumstances, this Rule is discharged on contest without any order as to costs.