STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SAUDI-BANGLADESH INDUSTRIAL AND INVESTMENT CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal, by leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.07.1999 passed by the High Court Division in F.A.T. No. 511 of 1999 permitting defendant respondents to file Memorandum of Appeal with bank guarantee.

(2.) The facts of the case, in short, are that the petitioner filed Money Suit No.77 of 1994 in the Artha Rin Adalat against the respondents and others for recovery of Tk. 32,31,99,460.38. After contest the suit was decreed by judgment and order dated 26.04.1999 for the claimed amount with interest @ 15% thereon and cost. Being aggrieved by the same respondents preferred F.A.T. No.511 of 1999 before the High Court Division without depositing 50% of the decretal 'Money' and by furnishing bank guarantee for the said amount in the trial Court. The petitioner opposed the registration of the said appeal on furnishing bank guarantee as the same has not been presented depositing 50% of the decretal 'Money' in the trial as required under Section 7(2) of the Artha Rin Ain, 1990. But the learned Judges of the High Court Division relying on their judgment and order dated 24.06.1999 passed in F.M.A.T. No.358 of 1999 permitted the respondents to file the Memorandum of Appeal with the bank guarantee furnished before the trial Court for 50% of the decretal dues. In the order dated 24.06.1999 passed in F.M.A.T. No.358 of 1999 learned Judges of the High Court Division held that since there is a provision in Section 6 of the said Ain for furnishing bank guarantee for filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the ex-parte decree and since it is impracticable to deposit huge cash money by chalan and since there is an indication in the law itself that the decretal amount can be deposited either in cash or by bank guarantee, furnishing bank guarantee will be sufficient compliance of the requirement of Section 7 of the said Ain. Being aggrieved by impugned order the petitioners have filed this petition for leave to appeal.

(3.) Leave was granted to consider the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that Section 7(2) of the Artha Rin Ain clearly provided for deposit of 50% of the decretal money in the trial Court as a mandatory condition precedent of filing an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Artha Rin Adalat and the learned Judges of the High Court Division fell into a serious error of law in directing registration of the appeal without such 'Money' deposit; that the question involved in this petition as to whether furnishing of bank guarantee, in lieu of deposit of decretal 'Money', can be construed as sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 7(2) of the said Ain and the same is a question of great public importance, particularly, in view of the conflicting decisions given by two Divisions Benches of the High Court Division on the same question.