A law that needs ratification

---

I would like to draw the kind attention of the general readers in particular the lawmakers of the country, to Section 18(3) of the Arthorin Adalat Ain 2003 (Ain). This is a bad Law as it discourages the investors to invest in the long run. No business can guarantee profit. If it could be ensured, then every one would resort to business. In practice only 3.0-5.0% of the world population are risk-takers i.e. the entrepreneurs, the prime mover of the economy.
This law has been enacted, ignoring the fundamental rights of the investors who borrowed fund to set up industries, created employment opportunities and contributed to the economic growth of the country.
As I know, some borrowers lodged money suit against banks much before the promulgation of this law and in some cases, the borrowers claim is much higher than the bank's claim in Artho Rin Suit. The borrowers are not getting equal treatment in the court as Section 18(3) of the law debarred the court from analogous hearing of the cases filed by the borrowers and the bank on the same matter. It will not be out of place to mention here that if the bank wins in the subsequent Artha Rin Suit, the borrower company's existence will be in total jeopardy to meet the said decree inspite of having more claim pending in the earlier suit against the bank. Whereas if the borrower company wins in the earlier suit, there will be no such jeopardy to the bank.
Because of this act, all the defaulting borrowers are deprived of their fundamental rights as laid in Part III of the Constitution of being treated equally (Article 27) and right of protection of law (Article 31). Finding no other remedies, some borrowers filed Writ Petitions, challenging the Act to the Hon'ble High Court to enforce their fundamental rights under Article 102 of the constitution (the power of the High Court Division to issue certain orders for the enforcement of fundamental rights). In most cases, the Hon'ble High Court Division of the Supreme Court issued rule in favour of the borrowers and stayed the Artho Rin Suit filed by the bank till disposal of the rule. This cannot be a permanent solution to the issue.
I hope the matter should be taken up by the lawmakers for rectification of the law and allowing analogous hearing of the cases filed by the borrowers and the bank in two different courts. It will save the entrepreneurs of the country from this bad law.

Ruhul Ameen, FCMA
Former Vice President of ICMAB