S. CO. POWER PLANT LTD. Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH
LAWS(BANG)-2009-10-6
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Decided on October 29,2009

S. Co. Power Plant Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Government Of Bangladesh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MD.JOYNUL ABEDIN, J. - (1.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 5778 of 2008 discharging the rule.
(2.) The short fact is that the petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition and obtained rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause why the order dated 6.7.2008 attaching the property of the petitioners by the Artha Rin Adalat and the proceeding of the execution proceeding in Artha Rin Execution Case No. 471 of 2008 should not be declared without lawful authority on the following averments. The writ petitioner No.1, a private limited company, obtained loan from respondent No.3, Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited amounting to Tk. 14,85,00,442/- with an annual interest at the rate of 15%. The Company failed to repay the outstanding loan amount to respondent No.3 bank. Therefore, the bank, as plaintiff, filed Artha Rin Suit No. 94 of 2007 before the Artha Rin Adalat No.4, Dhaka impleading the petitioners as defendants for recovery of Tk. 1,61,01,30, 305.28 due as on 8.8.2007 with interest and other charges by sale of mortgaged and hypothecated properties in favour of the bank. The suit was contested by the defendant-petitioners and it was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 2.3.2008. The judgment debtor-petitioners failed to repay the decreetal amount whereupon the bank filed Artha Rin Execution Case No. 471 of 2008 and obtained the order of attachment from the Adalat.
(3.) Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 contested the rule by filing an affidavit-in-opposition and supplementary affidavits-in-opposition supporting the impugned order contending, inter alia, that the petitioners were not persons aggrieved within the meaning of Article 102 of the Constitution inasmuch as the impugned order was not passed in violation of any law as the properties in respect of which impugned order was passed were hypothecated moveable properties and they were liable to auction-sale without interference of the Adalat for adjustment of the decreetal amount and thus the rule was liable to be discharged.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.