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

Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Md. Moshiur Rahman and another Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others.
Rejected summarily
2
Haji Chunu Mia vs Md. Nuruddin died, leaving behind his legal heirs: Neoyarunnesa and others
Dismissed
3
Haji Chunu Mia vs Md. Nuruddin died, leaving behind his legal heirs: Neoyarunnesa and others
Dismissed
4
Manager, Janata Bank, Ramkrishnopur Branch, Cumilla vs M/S Liyakat Ali and another
Allowed
5
The Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Moulvibazar vs The National Tea Company Limited and others
Dismissed
6
Hosne Ara vs Government Haji Mohammad Mohsin College and others
Discharged
7
Basudeb Biswas and others. -Versus- Mosa. Hasina Jahan and others.
Discharged
8
Suniti Ghosh … Petitioner -VersusThe government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of land, Bangladesh Secretariat, Shahbag, Dhaka and another … Respondents
Absolute
9
Shah Polash and others-Vs-Md. Al-Amin and another
Discharged
10
Sayad Akbar ... Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. -Versus- Parvin Aktar and others ... Plaintiffs-Respondents-Opposite parties.
The Rule is disposed of.
11
The State Vs Md. Liakot Ali and another.
12
The State-vs-Fatema Begum and another
13
Most. Rabeya Bibi and others Vs. Md. Azahar Ali Akonda and others
14
Aysha Siddika and another -Versus- The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Primary and Mass Education, Bangladesh Secretariat, Shahbag, Dhaka and others
15
Md. Delowar Hossain Khan and another versus Bengal Lands Limited, changed to BRAC Concord Lands Limited, and now Concord Lands Limited and others
Allowed
16
S.I. Zahidur Rahman Vs. The State and another
17
Md. Abul Bashar and others -Versus- Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Finance Division, Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others.
18
Tapan Kumar Sarkar and others -Versus- Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka-1000 and others.
19
Mst. Mabia Akter. -Versus- Md. Kamrul Islam and others.
20
Abaid Monsur -Versus- The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Road Transport and Highway Division, Building No.7 Floor No.8, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka-1000 and others
21
Adity Karim vs The Government of Bangladesh and Others
Absolute
22
Mosammat Ajufa Begum ---Petitioner. -Versus- Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary of the Ministry, Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others. ...Respondents.
23
Haripur Mathsajibi Samabay Samity Ltd. ---Petitioner. -Versus- The Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat, Abdul Gani Road, Shahbag, Dhaka-1000 and others. ---Respondents.
24
Abul Kashem and others ---Petitioners. -Versus- The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Bangladesh Secretariat, Police Station-Ramna, Dhaka and others. ---Respondents.
25
Md. Habibur Rahman ---Petitioner. -Versus- Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Education, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka -1000 and others. ---Respondents.
26
Md. Lukman Hosen and others ---Petitioners. -Versus- Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Co-operatives,Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others. ---Respondents.
27
Ukil Uddin Bhuiya being died his heirs Haider Ali Bhuiyan and others. ... Plaintiff-Respondent -Petitioners. -Versus- People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Bagerhat. ... Defendant-Appellant -Opposite Party.
28
Md. Maula Box and others. ... Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioners. -Versus- Government of the Peoples republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirajganj and others. ... Defendant-Respondent -Opposite Parties.
29
Md. Abul Kalam Master and another. -Versus- Md. Abu Bakar Siddique and others.
Absolute
30
Suen Hasan
Detention Judgment
31
32
Azizul Islam and another-Vs-Abdul Momen and others
Discharged
33
Saidul Alam Chowdhury-Vs-Abdul Momen and others
Discharged
34
The Senior General Manager, Cumilla Palli Bidyut Samity-1 Vs. The third Labour Court, Dhaka
Disposed of
35
Md. Shamsul Huda vs. The Government of Bangladesh
Disposed of
36
Md. Noyon -Versus- The State
37
Tanjina -Versus- The State and another
38
Robiul Alom @ Robiul Hosen -Versus- Md. Abdur Rahim and another
39
Choyful Ahmed alias Suza Miah -Versus- The State and another
40
Md. Zian Mollik -Versus- Abdur Kader Fokir and another
41
Md. Abdus Salam. -Versus- The Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and Firms and others.
Allowed
42
Md. Maula Box and others. ... Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioners. -Versus- Government of the Peoples republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirajganj and others. ... Defendant-Respondent -Opposite Parties.
43
Shibpad Sarker. -Versus- Kamal Bashak and others.
Discharged.
44
Shree Kowshik Datta (Pappu). -Versus- District Delegate and Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Chattogram
Allowed
45
Md. Rais Uddin Ishali ... Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner -Versus- Most. Sanjila Akter Shila and another
The Rule is discharged
46
Syed Ziad Rahman, son of late Sayed Habibur Rahman and late Anwara Begum of 24/25, Mohammad Ali Road (ICI Banglo), Bloosm Garden, CDA Avenue, Dampara, Chittagong City Corporation, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Chittagong.-Vs-Chittagong Development Authority (CDA) represented by its Chairman, CDA Bhaban, Chittagong and others.
Absolute
47
Sonjoy Kumar Saha Vs. Sonali Biri Factory (Pvt.) Limited and others.
Dismissed.
48
Masood R. Sobhan for the petitioner (in person) vs Bangladesh Bank and others.
It is the categorical findings of our Appellate Division that exercise of discretion by the High Court Division to treat the petitioner aggrieved or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Accordingly, this Court can grant locus standi to the petitioner to maintain the writ petition for judicial redress of public injury arising from breach of public duty or for violation of the respective provisions of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and or observance of such constitutional or legal provision. No doubt, instant writ petition does not reflect strict compliance with the respective provisions of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) Rules, 1973, but when an issue is brought to the judicial notice of this Court, the guardian of the Constitution, by filing writ petition under Article 102 of the Constitution involving public cause, which ultimately led to disclosure of public wrong or public injury, the same cannot be throttled down on the ground that the petition suffers from procedural defect or is not in form. In other words, this writ petition maintains/survives in the eye of law considering the given facts and circumstances of the instant case. Generally, question of appointment of the Receiver comes into play for preservation of the subject matter of the litigation pending judicial determination of the rights of the parties concerned. However, in the instant case, the appointment of the Receiver by the respondent no.1 pursuant to the interim order of this Court, has not been made within the framework of the respective statute, rules, regulations or circulars of Bangladesh Bank. Said interim order has been passed by this Court considering the exigency of the present context of the respective companies of Beximco Group which involves huge outstanding loan of Tk.53,100 crore, sanctioned by different scheduled banks and financial institutions and Tk. 23,120.51 crore being classified as of 30.09.2024. Thus, posing significant threat to recovery of the said public fund.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, appointing a receiver by Bangladesh Bank pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court and having not been interfered with by the Hon’ble Appellate Division, is found lawful under the doctrine of necessity as embodied in the maxim, salus populi est suprema lex (public welfare is the hightest law).
49
Securities Exchange Commission vs. Government of Bangladesh and others
50
Abdul Motakeb and others Vs. The Government of the People`s Republic of Bangladesh and others
Disposed of
This Site is Visited :