Judgment text0% read
Browse the contents
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website ↗
Case information
| Court | Supreme Court of Bangladesh — High Court Division |
|---|---|
| Case reference | First Appeal 38/2020 |
| Case-reference year | 2020 |
| Case type | First Appeal |
| Court website upload date | 22-SEP-26 |
The case-reference year is not the judgment year. The court website upload date is not a judgment date.
Official index description (excerpt)
Source: Supreme Court official index.
Ratio 3: Deterioration or destruction of secured goods does not, by itself, establish negligence or breach of duty by the lender. A claimant seeking compensation must prove the specific legal or contractual duty owed by the lender, the particular breach thereof, the direct causal connection between that breach and the loss, and the legally recoverable quantum of such loss. Where the borrower retained physical possession and control of the goods, sections 151 and 152 cannot be invoked merely because the lender held a security interest over them. Ratio 4: A contractual allocation of risk concerning loss, damage or deterioration of secured goods is not rendered void under section 23 of the Contract Act merely because it operates to the disadvantage of the borrower, particularly where the borrower retained possession of the goods. Section 152 itself recognizes the relevance of a special contract. However, no contractual term can override a mandatory statutory duty or immunize a party from an otherwise established breach of such duty. The Blue Pencil Rule is a doctrine of severability
[Excerpt ends; the complete index description is retained in the catalogue JSON.]