The said rule was framed in 1912 which was gazette on 12th June, 1912 and that rule is still in force in Bangladesh pursuant to the provisions of section 24 of the Admiralty Act, 2000. Section 24 of the present Act pro- vides that until rules are framed under the new Act the Admiralty Rules which were in existence will be followed and admittedly no rule has yet been framed under the Admiralty Act, 2000. Therefore the rules framed in 1912 under the provisions of the previous Act are still in force and govern the procedure in the Admiralty Court. Rule 35 of the Admiralty Rule, 1912 provides the procedures for sale of the property in execution of the decree and it shows that the decretal amount can be realized by adopting a procedure, which is laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for sale of movable proper- ties. It has been specifically provided by Rule 35 that every sale under the decree of the Admiralty Court shall unless the court otherwise order, be made by the Marshal in like manner as a sale of movable property in execution of a decree in an ordinary civil suit. In the instant case Rule 35 applies as it has not been ordered by the court that sale of immovable property be conducted in a manner as done by civil court in execution of a decree. Therefore, in order to realize and satisfy the decretal amount the decree holder need not at all resort to any execution case at all as contemplated by Order 21 of the Code. Be that as it may, a practice has developed though not required by law that sometimes to satisfy the decree in Admiralty Court execution cases are started. It must be emphasized that it is not the requirement of law. 

Ref: 10 M.L.R (HC) (2005) -209
 

When the Club has taken decision to expel the petitioner permanently, having his membership deleted from the Register Book, the provisions of section 43 of the Act are attracted without any contrivance. When any decision's/order's consequence is omission of a member's name from the register book of a company/Club by which the member is aggrieved, a case under section 43 of the Act is prima facie made out, irrespective of the nature of the order. The proposition that this Court wishes to lay down here is that whether the company's order is an administrative order or an order of other nature does not matter in a section 43 application, if the ultimate consequence is removal of a member's name from the register book or inclusion of any person's name therein without sufficient cause.

Ref: 73 D.L.R (2021) -439