3
Judgment : High Court 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 Lokman Vs Ayub Ali and the State Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 118(a) and 138: Cheque is a negotiable instrument (section 13). In the instant case, the prosecution story as narrated in the petition of complaint and the deposition of the complainant as PW1 sharply contradicts each other as to when the complainant paid the money to the accused against which the cheque was issued to repay the same. The petition of complaint is silent about the date of monetary transaction, but states that the cheque was issued by the accused subsequently. In deposition, the complainant stated that the payment of money and issuance of the cheque took place on the same date which creates a doubt as to passing off consideration to the complainant against which the cheque was issued. Therefore, the presumption under section 118(a) of the Act, 1881 as to consideration has been successfully rebutted by the defence. ...(Para 14) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 9: In my view, the trial Court has correctly found that the complainant is not the holder of the cheque in due course. ...(Para 17)
2 The State-Vs- Qamrul Islam and others
3 Kamruzzaman Khan Vs.Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law,Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat,Ramna, Dhaka and others
4 The State Vs. Md. Foysal Bin Nayem @ Dip and Redoyanul Azad @ Rana
5 Rama Prasanna Bhattacharjee vs. Government of Bangladesh and others DO letter is not an official communication made by any machinery of the Republic.
6 Dr. Zubaida Rahman vs. The State and another
7 Moudud Ahmed vs. The State and another
8 Raghib Rauf Chowdhury vs. Government of Bangladesh and others Regarding the appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh
9 Association of Ship Recycling in Bangladesh and another Vs. The Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others
10 Md. Milad Hossain @ Milad Uddin Vs. The State Therefore, the Registrar General of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh is directed to constitute a Monitoring Cell headed by him or the Registrar of the High Court Division along with the Secretary or his representative not below the rank of Additional Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Law and Justice Division, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. The Monitoring Cell shall monitor this aspect and shall submit report from time to time to the concerned authorities of the responsible persons for taking appropriate action in accordance with section 31Ka (3) of the Act, 2000 with a copy thereof to the Monitoring Committee for the Subordinate Judiciary of the Supreme Court.
11 The State -Vs- Abul Kashem Kha
12 The State -Vs- Zakir Hossain and another
13 The State-Vs- Md. Ramjan Sheikh and another
14 The State-Vs-Mohammad Ali
15 The State -Vs- Md. Saiful Islam and one another
16 The State Vs. Md. Sharif and Md. Mintu Khan
17 Md. Abdullah Md. Ehtesham Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs , Peoples Republic of bang, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others
18 Liberty Fashion Wears Limited Vs. Bangladesh Accord Foundation and others
19 Md. Sirajuddwla VS The State and another It is not an invariable rule that there cannot be any parallel proceedings on the same facts in Criminal and Civil courts. At the same time, section 344 of the Cr.P.C. vests power upon the Court to postpone or adjourn criminal proceedings ‘for any other reasonable cause’. Thus, proceedings in Criminal Court should be stayed or adjourned where identical issues based on same facts as in criminal cases are involved in suits pending in Civil Court.
20 Md. Abdul Mazed Vatt @ Md. Yousuf Vs The State Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 Section 540: Section 540 aims to arm a Court with vast discretion to find out the truth in a given case. The entire purpose of this enabling provision is to arrive at the truth or otherwise of the fact under investigation. Thus the section confers a wide discretion to the Court to act as the exigencies of justice require. But the discretion cannot be allowed to be used to fill up the gaps in the evidence of a party who seeks recourse to the use of this provision. Power under the section can be exercised by the Court for judicial consideration only and not to advance the case of prosecution or that of the defence. The power can be exercised to know about something which is not present on the record already due to the failure of either party or due to the reasons beyond the control of any of the parties, or on account of something which has come to light during the trial. The party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court for exercising power in its favour shall satisfy the Court about the existence of lacuna or of the circumstances, which palpably justify such action. Mere quoting the words of section 540 in the application is not enough for exercising such powers. … (Para 17)
This Site is Visited :