2
Judgment : Appellate Division
(If you feel problem with font, please, download Bangla font from Downloads Link)
 
Case Category : 
Case Type
Case Number
Year
Parties
Short Description
 

Case Number Parties Short Description
1 Mohammad Zafar Iqbal and others: VS Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary of the Ministry of Liberation War Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others:
2 Bangladesh Bank vs East West Property Developments (Pvt.) Limited and others
3 Ataur Mridha @ Ataur vs The State
4 Government of Bangladesh represented by Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka vs Rangamati Food Products Ltd. and others:
5 Bangladesh Bar Council, represented by its Chairman, Dhaka Vs. A.K.M. Fazlul Kamir and others
6 Sohrab Ali Miah and others vs Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation and another
7 M/S. Gramsico Limited vs Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation
8 Mufti Abdul Hannan Munshi alias Abul Kalam and another vs The State Mufti Abdul Hannan Munshi alias Abul Kalam and another vs The State
9 Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2016 Mufti Abdul Hannan Munshi alias Abul Kalam and another vs The State
10 The Vice Chancellor, University of Dhaka and others vs A.K.M.Muid and others The Vice Chancellor, University of Dhaka and others vs A.K.M.Muid and others
11 Abdullah Chowdhury and others vs Janata Bank Ltd. and others Abdullah Chowdhury and others vs Janata Bank Ltd. and others
12 Banichitra Pratisthan Limited and others VS Bilkis Begum and others
13 Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others vs. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) represented by Dr. Shahdeen Malik and others Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others vs. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) represented by Dr. Shahdeen Malik and others
14 Bangladesh, represented by the Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Division, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka. vs. Md. Ataur Rahman and others Bangladesh, represented by the Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Division, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka. vs. Md. Ataur Rahman and others
15 Civil Appeal 36/2011
16 President, Bangladesh Garments Manufacturers and Exporters Association(BGMEA) Vs. Bangladesh The BGMEA has constructed a fifteen storied commercial complex on the “BegunBari Khal” and “Hatir jheel lake” which is natural waterbody (cÖvK…wZK Rjvavi) as has been specifically admitted in the schedule to the transfer deed, Annexure-K-2 as well as in the government record and in the Master Plan of the Dhaka City, as Lake/Jolashoy/Doba. As such from the above provision of law, the class or the nature and character of the same cannot be changed nor can be used in any other manner/purpose nor can the same be leased out, rented or transferred by any body. The law further provides that any person changing the nature and character of such “Joladhar” (water body),in violation of section 5 of the said Act of 2000, shall be dealt with in accordance with law as provided in section 8. Since BGMEA has constructed the multi-storied commercial building upon the said waterbody in violation of the law such illegal construction/obstruction must be demolished for which the BGMEA or any other person, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, cannot claim any compensation as provided in Section8(2) of the Joladhar Ain 2000. ..........................................The petitioner is directed to demolish the building namely, “BGMEA Complex” situated on the waterbody of “Begunbari khal” and “Hatirjheel lake” at once, at its own costs, in default the RAJUK is directed to demolish the same within 90 days from the date of receipt of this judgment and realize the entire demolition costs from the petitioner, BGMEA.
17 Civil Appeal 8/2012 Civil Appeal 8/2012
18 Civil Review Petition 189/2015
19 Civil Appeal 83/2007
20 The State Vs. Advocate Md. Qamrul Islam, M.P. Minister, Ministry of Food and another We are unable to accept the unconditional apology offered by the contemnors taking into consideration that the contemnors are sitting Cabinet Ministers holding constitutional posts. They are oath bound to preserve and protect the Constitution. The impugned statements/comments/remarks made by them apparently show that they made those comments intentionally with the object of maligning and undermining the office of the Chief Justice and the highest Court of the country. Their statements are so derogatory and contemptuous that if they are let off any person will be emboldened to make similar statements/remarks/comments interfering with the administration of justice and also undermining the authority of this Court in the estimation of the people in general. The prayer for unconditional apology is, therefore, refused. The contemnors are found guilty of gross contempt of this Court.
This Site is Visited :