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

Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Gerab LLC. Petitioner. -VS- Government of Bangladesh and others
A foreign arrest warrant issued by a competent court does not, by itself, become enforceable within the territory of Bangladesh so as to impose an obligation upon the local authorities to arrest or surrender the person concerned. The arrest, extradition or surrender of a person to a foreign State must be undertaken strictly in accordance with the applicable domestic law and the prescribed legal procedure. A private party, notwithstanding its interest in the foreign criminal proceedings, cannot, merely by submitting an application to the concerned authorities, compel the execution of a foreign arrest warrant in the absence of the requisite legal process. Unless a statutory or constitutional obligation requiring the respondents to act is established, their alleged inaction cannot be characterised as a failure to discharge a public duty warranting the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 102 of the Constitution.
2
Md. Abul Kashem Vs. Md. Babul Hossain and others
This matter for abated
3
Md. Kazim Uddin -versus- The State and another
The Rule is discharged.
4
Md. Ali Akbar Mintu -Versus- The State and another.
The appeal is dismissed with modification of the sentence of fine.
5
Md. Lal Miah -Versus- The State and another
The Rule is discharged.
6
Md. Abul Bashar -Versus- The State and another
The Rule is discharged.
7
Md. Baccu Miah and others -Versus- Md. Nur Uddin and others
The First Appeal is allowed.
8
Mohammad Nazmul Haider Chowdhury Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of land, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others.
Section 2(4) of the Power of Attorney Act, 2012 defines an irrevocable Power of Attorney by reference to the nature and purpose of the transaction. Section 4(6) provides for the devolution of rights and liabilities arising out of an irrevocable Power of Attorney upon the lawful heirs or successors of the deceased or legally incapacitated person, subject to the statutory proviso. Similarly, section 11(1)(d) excludes an irrevocable Power of Attorney from the general rule of termination upon the death of the donor.

Upon a harmonious interpretation of the aforesaid provisions, we are of the considered view that an irrevocable Power of Attorney coupled with consideration and interest stands on a different footing from an ordinary Power of Attorney. Where the attorney has acquired a subsisting interest in the subject matter of the agency through a lawful transaction, the instrument cannot be treated as a mere delegation of authority divorced from the underlying transaction. Nor can the interest so acquired be defeated merely by the death of the principal.
9
Joyrath Paul and others Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others.
In considering the matter, we find it necessary to refer to the provisions of Clause (kha) of Section 12 of the Orpito Sampatti Prottyarpan Ain, 2001. The said provision makes it clear that an order directing release of any property from the list of vested properties shall not, by itself, be deemed to declare or confirm the title, possession or any other right of the applicant in respect of the property so released. In other words, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the said Act is confined to examining the legality of the inclusion of the property in the list of vested properties and determining whether the applicant is entitled to have the property released from such list. Such an order does not operate as a declaration of title or confirmation of possession in favour of the applicant.

Upon a conjoint reading of Sections 10, 12 and 17 of the Orpito Sampatti Prottyarpan Ain, 2001, we are of the view that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to determining whether the property in question has been lawfully included in the list of vested properties and whether the applicant has established a prima facie claim entitling him to obtain an order for release of the property from the said list. The Tribunal is not vested with the jurisdiction to conclusively adjudicate upon competing claims of title, ownership or possession between rival claimants.
10
Md. Tayab Uddin Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Secondary and Higher Education, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others.
We are conscious of the settled principle of law that the grant of MPO benefits is a matter of Government policy and that an employee of a non-government educational institution cannot claim such benefits as a matter of absolute right. In this regard, the Appellate Division, in Government of Bangladesh and others v. Md. Nazrul Islam and others, reported in 27 BLT (AD) 167, observed that MPO benefits are granted in accordance with Government policy and that such benefits cannot be claimed as a matter of right in the absence of infringement of any legally enforceable right or violation of law. The aforesaid principle has also been reiterated by the Appellate Division in Government of the People`s Republic of Bangladesh and others v. Ismat Ara Jahan and others, reported in 12 LM (AD) 290; Government and others v. Md. Mainul Haq and others, reported in 12 LM (AD) 345; and Government of Bangladesh and others v. Md. Musabbir Mamun and others, reported in 15 LM (AD) 98.
11
Md. Khabir Uddin and others Vs. Md. Ali Akbor and others
Suit for declaration
12
Md. Abdur Rashid and others Vs. Md. Mokaram Hossain and others
Title Suit
13
Sree Joyanto Kumar Roy and another Vs. Dinesh Chandra Roy and others
This suit for permanent injunction
14
Meghna Star Cables and Electrical Appliances Ltd Vs. Director Procurement Bangladesh Rural Electrification Board (BREB) and others
This is an arbitration case under Section 7A of the Arbitration Act, 2001 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
15
Syeda Shaira Mohsin and others
Disposed of
16
Prodip Mondal -Versus- The State and another
17
Md. Shahajahan Sarder and another. -Versus- The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others.
A public authority, while discharging its statutory and administrative responsibilities, is under an obligation to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with law. Where a representation has been duly submitted before the competent authority, the authority concerned is required to apply its independent mind to the issues raised therein and arrive at a decision by considering the relevant facts, applicable laws and Rules. The decision may be either in favour of or against the person making the representation; however, the authority must communicate its decision through a reasoned order. Keeping such a representation pending without any decision or communication, particularly for an indefinite period, cannot be regarded as a fair or satisfactory discharge of public duty.
18
N. Mohammad Plastic Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Taxes
the reference application is disposed of
19
Abul Bashar Patwary and another -Versus- On the death of op No. 1, her heirs are already on record: Sirajul Islam and others
Absolute
20
Abul Fayez Md. Mahbubul Haque and another -Versus- Mst. Sabekunnahar and others
Absolute
21
Most. Ambia Khatun -Versus- Mst. Halima Begum and others
I am of the firm view that properly framing issues is a substantive procedural safeguard essential to a fair trial, confining adjudication to the actual controversy, and ensuring an effective determination. Consequently, the Court cannot adjudicate beyond the scope of the pleadings, nor can parties introduce a new case through evidence. However, failing to frame a material issue does not absolve the Court from deciding the real controversy, provided no prejudice occurs to the opposing party. Finally, the appellate court must ensure these safeguards by verifying that the trial court`s findings are fully supported by evidence tied directly to the settled issues.
22
Nazrul Islam Monju----Petitioner. -Versus- Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works----Respondents
As a result, the Rule Nisi is made absolute without any order as to costs.
23
Showkat Aziz and others. … Petitioners -Versus- Bangladesh Bank represented by its Governor, Bangladesh Bank Bhavan, Motijheel Commercial Area, Dhaka and others. … Respondents
Absolute
24
Mrs. Sufia Khatun versus Mohammad Mostafa Kamal and others
As per section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the written terms of the contract cannot be altered or varied by oral evidence.
25
Cosmos Sea Foods Limited -Versus- Sonar Bangla Insurance and others
The First Appeal is dismissed.
26
Mr. Touhidul Islam Chaudhury, son of late Tariq Ahmed Choudhury and Mrs. Nurjahan Begum of House-27/E, Road-10, Banani Model Town, Dhaka-1213 and also at House No. 348, Road No. 05, DOHS, Baridhara-1212, Banani, Dhaka represented by his constituted lawful attorney- Md. Mostafizur Rahaman Saikot.-Vs-The learned Artha Rin Adalat No. 5, Dhaka and others.
Absolute
27
Abdul Mannan and others … Plaintiff-Petitioners Versus Government of Bangladesh and others ... Defendant-Opposite Parties
Absolute
28
Abdul Baset Majumder, being dead, his legal heirs: 1. Mossammat Rowshan Jahan Meherunnesa, wife of late Abdul Baset Majumder and others versus Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK), represented by its Chairman, 1 RAJUK Bhaban, RAJUK Avenue, Motijheel, Dhaka-1000 and others
Discharged
29
Mohammad Asif -Versus- Government of the people’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka and others
The First Appeal is allowed.
30
Md. Joynal Abedin -Versus- Md. Amzed Hossain Biswas, being dead, his heirs: 1(a) Md. Mostafa Kamal and others
So far as the existence of the R.S. record in the name of the opposite party, I am of the view that the R.S. record prepared and published in the opposite party`s name while a pre-emption case is pending does not, if that case ends unsuccessfully, confer legal entitlement on that party.
31
Samirendra Guha Roy -Versus- Shabana Khatun and others
The First Appeal is allowed.
32
Mohammad Hanif being dead his heirs- Rubaiyat Hanif and others -Versus- Government of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka and others
.
33
Bank Asia Limited, Agrabad Brahch, Chattogram and another -Versus- Jamuna Bank Limited, Anderkilla Brahch, Chattogram
.
34
S. M. Jahangir Habib -Versus- Assistant Commissioners (Land), Khulna and others
The First Appeal is allowed.
35
Md. Farid Ahmed being dead his heirs- Mst. Saleha Begum and others -Versus- Abdur Rop @ Rouf and others
The First Appeal is allowed.
36
Shree Ananta Kumar Aich, being dead, his legal heirs are- 1(a) Anjali Kumar Aich and others -Versus- Shree Sadhon Bhowmik and others
Discharged
37
Md. Hanif Ali -Versus- Md. Sirajul Islam and others
.
38
Md. Akramul Haque Chowdhury Vs. the Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka and others
summarily rejected
39
Khurshida Akter and others Vs. The Artha Rin Adalat and others
Disposed of
40
Tahmid Enterprise Vs. Bangladesh and others
Disposed of
41
M.A. Salam Molla Vs. Bangladesh and others
Discharged
42
Tahmid Enterprise Vs. Bangladesh and others
Rule Absolute
43
Md. Mostafa Amzad Hossain Vs. The Artah Rin Adalat No. 2, Dhaka and others
Rule absolute
44
Md. Abdul Majid Pondit, being dead, his heirs Md. Iqbal Hossain and others -Versus- Most. Sakena Khatun and others
In the case of a fraudulent instrument, no declaration of title is required where the plaintiff or his predecessor is admittedly the owner of the property included in the alleged instrument, and any instrument without the evidence of due registration cannot be taken, and the said registration itself does not create any evidence of execution.
45
M/s. Faridpur Himagar Limited and others Vs. the Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Faridpur and others
Summarily rejected
46
Jahurul Islam Medical College and Hospital Vs. NBR and others
Absolute
47
Md. Shohel Vuyea Vs. Bangladesh Bank and others
Disposed of
48
D.H. Euro Hi Tech Co. (BD) Limited Vs. Bangladesh and others
Discharged
49
Mohammad Anowar Hossain Vs. Bangladesh Bank
discharged
50
Kenpark Bangladesh (pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh Bank
Discharged
This Site is Visited :