: High Court Division Full List
 
Case Type
Case/Tender Number
Year
Parties
Short Description
 

Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Adhir Rahman Chowdhury and others -Versus- Parimol Kanti Chowdhury being dead his heirs and successors- Ashutush Chowdhury and others
.
2
Muiz Khan (Ronnie) alias Ronnie Abdul Muiez. -VERSUS- The Registrar, Joint Stock Companies and Firms (RJSC) and others.
Dismissed.
3
Sheikh Kafiluddin and another vs. Rahaman Dewan and others
Discharged
4
Md. Shafiqul Islam vs. Shirin Islam and others
Disposed of
5
Md. Abdul Shonar being dead his legal heirs: 1(a) Most. Jubeda Bibi and others vs. Shamsuddin Chowdhury being dead his legal heirs: 1(a) Johura Bewa and others
Discharged
6
Golam Maizbhanderi and others vs. Syed Montu and others
Discharged
7
Md. Abu Hanif and others-Vs-Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Education and others
Absolute
8
Mosammat Achia Khatun and others vs. Md. Raisuddin Ahmed and others
Discharged
9
Md. Akbar Ali and another ... Convict-Petitioners -Versus- The State ... Opposite Party
The Rule is discharged
10
Mosammat Rajia Begum -Vs- Fatema Begum and others
A registered document takes effect from the date of execution, but, as regards a third party, the effective date is the date of registration.
A sale executed prior in point of time would prevail.
In a suit for specific performance of contract the onus lies heavily on the person whose title arises subsequent to the contract to sell and he must prove that he is a transferee for value and has paid the money in good faith and without notice of the original contract”
11
Md. Soaif Uddin -Vs- The State and another
Absolute
12
Md. Apel Mahmud ...Convict-Appellant -Versus- The State ...Respondent
The appeal is allowed
13
Soyeb Rahman alias Jimmy ... Appellant -Versus- The State and another ... Respondents
The appeal is dismissed
14
Abdul Kabir -Versus- Abdus Sattar and another
Disposed of
15
Most. Amina Begum -Versus- Md Lutfor Rahman Lota and others
Discharged
16
Titas Gas Transmission and Distribution PLC vs Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna Dhaka and others
The respondent No. 4 was employed as an Inspector (Assistant Accountant) under the petitioner company. During the course of his service, allegation surfaced that he had misappropriated company funds by creating and posting forged gas bill payment receipts in the company`s computerized billing system in respect of several consumers, thereby causing substantial financial loss to the petitioner company.
17
Sarowar Alamgir Versus Election Commission Bangladesh, represented by the Chief Election Commissioner, Nirbachon Bhaban, Agargon, Agargon, Dhaka 1207 and others
13th National Parliament Election scheduled to be held on 12.02.2026 as BNP nominated candidate from the Constituency No. 279, Chattogram-2 .
18
Metrocem Cement Limited Vs. M.V. HAJI KAYES, M-7691 and others.
Application for return of the plaint is allowed.
19
Md. Gias Uddin ... Appellant -Versus- The State and another ... Respondents
The appeal is allowed
20
A.T.M. Ashraful Islam Helal … Petitioner -VersusGovernment of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others … Respondents
Discharged
21
Abdul Kalam -versus- The State and another
Dismissed
22
Mst. Shahanara Bewsa and others -Versus- Upazila Nirbahi Karmokarta, Bagmara, Rajshahi and another
Discharged
23
Md. A.Jabbar being died leaving behind his heirs 1(a) Most. Jabeda Begum and others Defendant-respondents-petitioners Versus Md. A. Gafur and others Plaintiff-appellants-opposite parties
Dismissing the suit
24
Md. Mahmudul Karim … Petitioners -Versus- The Government of Bangladesh and others … Respondents
Discharged
25
Sheikh Shamsur Rahman and another -Versus- Sheikh Zia and others
.
26
Haji Md. Din Islam -Versus- Moynakali and others
.
27
Md. Babul Mondol alias Babul Hossain and others Vs. Md. Mozammel Haq and others
Dismissed
28
Bangladesh General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Bangladesh Biman Corporation and others
Dismissed
29
Md. Abdur Rafiqu Sarkar Vs. Jiban Bima Corporation
Dismissed
30
M.A. Awal Siddique and others Vs. Manager, Uttara Bank, Central Road Branch Rangpur and others
Dismissed
31
Md. Nazrul Islam vs. Md. Sukur Ali Sheikh and another
The Rule is made absolute.
32
Sree Ballov Chandra Das being dead his legal heirs- Uttam Chandra Namo and others -Versus- Abdul Motaleb and others
.
33
Md. Nurul Islam versus The Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka, and others
Discharged
34
Md. Hossen Ali being dead and his heir 1(Ka) Hamida Begum and others ...Petitioners -Versus- Sufia Haque and others …Opposite parties
Absolute
35
Md. Alauddin ... Convict-Appellant-Petitioner -Versus- The State and another ...Complainant-Respondent-Opposite Parties
The Rule is discharged
36
Mossamath Jahanara Begum and others -Versus- Md. Abdul Khalek Howlader and others
Discharged
37
Abdur Rahman -versus- The State and another
Absolute
38
Mr. Abul Kalam Azad and another. -Versus- Neptune Land Development Ltd. and others.
This Court, therefore, holds that for the purpose of maintaining an application under section 233 of the Companies Act, 1994, the qualifying requirement prescribed in section 195(a) must be satisfied by the applicants in their own capacity as registered members of the company. Shares standing in the name of a separate corporate entity cannot be treated as the shareholding of its individual shareholders. An indirect or derivative economic interest arising through shareholding in a corporate shareholder does not confer membership within the meaning of the Companies Act and cannot be reckoned towards the statutory threshold under section 195(a).
39
Ali Haider Ratan and another, -Versus - Khudeja Bhumukhi Farm Ltd., and others.
The materials on record disclose that respondent No. 3 admittedly executed a Power of Attorney before the Bangladesh Consulate in London on 19.10.2010 authorising respondent No. 2 to deal with matters relating to the Company, including her shareholding. Significantly, respondent No. 3 herself has produced before this Court a subsequent deed purporting to revoke the said Power of Attorney. In the ordinary course of law, a revocation necessarily presupposes the existence of a valid authority. Thus, the very reliance placed by respondent No. 3 upon the deed of revocation constitutes an admission that such authority had indeed been created.
40
South Express Limited. -Versus- Madina Enterprise and another
This court is of the view that since the respondents admittedly received notice of the arbitral proceedings, failed to appoint their arbitrator within the stipulated time, participated through solicitors without challenging the tribunal`s jurisdiction before the competent English court, and since no ground under section 46 of the Arbitration Act, 2001 was established, the learned District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by reappraising the merits of the award, holding that the arbitrator committed errors of fact and law, and purporting to set aside the foreign arbitral award. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and the Award is entitled to recognition and enforcement under section 45 of the Arbitration Act, 2001.
41
Sree Ranjit Kumar Mondal and others Vs Mst. Joygun Nesa and others
It is a settled principle of law that, in a probate proceeding, the Court is not competent to determine questions relating to the title or ownership of the property bequeathed under a Will. The sole enquiry in such proceedings is whether the testator duly executed the Will and whether it represents his last Will and testament. It is equally well settled that the grant of probate establishes only the due execution, genuineness and operative character of the Will. It neither invalidates any subsequent transfer nor declares that the beneficiaries under the Will have acquired a better title to the property. However, a subsequent purchaser may oppose the grant of probate only on grounds relating to the genuineness or validity of the Will, such as by alleging that the Will is forged or fabricated, was not duly executed or attested in accordance with law, that the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity, or that its execution was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. But, such a purchaser cannot invite the probate Court to adjudicate questions of title or to declare that his or her sale deed conveys a better title than that of the beneficiaries under the Will, because such issues lie beyond the limited jurisdiction of a probate Court.
42
Jogesh Chandra Roy Memorial Trust, represented by its Chairman, Alhaj Aktaruzzaman Chowdhury vs The Government of The People’s Republic of Bangladesh
Discharged
43
Kumudini Welfare Trust of Bengal (BD) Ltd. vs. Pubali Bank Limited and another
Rule Discharged
44
Sadrul Hasan, son of Aiyub, Proprietor, S2 Imports of House No. 61/B, Flat-5/B, Road-6/A, Dhanmondi R/A, Post Office-Jigatola-1209, Police Station-Dhanmondi, Dhaka and others. … Petitioners -Versus- The Commissioner of Taxes, Income Tax Intelligence and Investigation Unit, National Board of Revenue, Dak Bhaban (11th floor), Sher-E-Bangla Nagar, Agargaon, Dhaka-1207 … Respondent
Absolute
45
Md. Enamul Haque ... Convict-Appellant -Versus- The State and another ...Complainant-Respondents
The appeal is disposed of
46
Discharged
47
Md. Mahtab Uddin and another ...Petitioners -Versus- Executive Engineer, Sales
Discharged
48
Shafiul Islam ........ Defendant-appellant-petitioner -Versus- Sree Provat Chandra Barman and others ....... Plaintiff-respondent-opposite parties
Rule Absolute
49
Md. Saiful Rahman Mondol @ Bablu ... Appellant -Versus- The State and another ... Respondents
The appeal is dismissed
50
Sarder Moin Uddin and others Vs. The People`s Republic of Bangladesh and others
.
This Site is Visited :