|
Case Number
|
Parties |
Short Description |
|
151 |
Writ Petition 5579/2014
(/) |
Mr. M. Qumrul Haque Siddique, Advocate, SupremeCourt of Bangladesh Vs The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of thePeople’s Republic of Bangladesh, BangladeshSecretariat, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others |
|
|
152 |
Transferred Misc Case 1/2016
(Transferred Misc Case 1/2016) |
Catherine Masud VS Md. Kashed Miah |
|
|
153 |
Writ Petition 1932/2017
(with W. P. No. 3636 of 2017) |
Asian Traffic Technologies Ltd. Vs The Government of Bangladesh represented by theSecretary, Road, Transport and Highways Division,Ministry of Road, Transport and Bridges, BangladeshSecretariat, Dhaka-1000 and others |
|
|
154 |
Writ Petition 11395/2012
(Writ Petition 11395/2012) |
Shantinagar Bohumukhi Samabay samity VS Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat Building, Ramna, Dhaka. |
|
|
155 |
Writ Petition 12839/2012
(Writ Petition 12839/2012) |
Rezia Bibi alias Most. Rezia Khatun Bibi VS Artha Rin Adalat, Bogra |
|
|
156 |
Death Reference 99/2015
(Criminal Appeal No. 10281 of 2015 with Jail Appeal No. 2016 of 2015) |
The State-Vs-Oyshee Rahman |
1. Condemned prisoner committed double murder without
any apparent motive and was suffering from mental
derailment or some sort of mental disorder and also
suffering from ovarian cyst and bronchial asthma;
2. Her paternal grandmother and maternal uncle had a
history of psychiatric disorders according to exibit-15;
3. She was around 19[nineteen] year old at the relevant
time and the occurrence took place just immediately
after her attaining the age of majority;
4. She has no such significant history of prior criminal
activity [criminal cases] and
5. She had willingly surrendered to the police station soon
after two days of the occurrence. |
|
157 |
First Misc Appeal 19/2011
(with Civil Rule 530 (F.M.)/2010) |
শেখ আবু সেলিম বনাম বাংলাদেশ হাউজ বিল্ডিং ফাইন্যান্স কর্পোরেশন গং |
|
|
158 |
Writ Petition 5091/2014 |
Md. Ataul Goni Sheikh and others Vs.The People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others |
|
|
159 |
Criminal Revision 1050/2017 |
Abdul Kader Gazi Vs. The State and another |
The learned Judge of the Shishu Adalat, Chandpur committed serious error of law and exceeded its jurisdiction while dealing with the application for bail of an adult accused and that too without having the case record for trial in due course.
Moreover, section 18 of the Shishu Ain, 2013 will come into play after the case record is transmitted to the Shishu Adalat for trial, not before that. |
|
160 |
Criminal Appeal(H) 6094/2016
(Criminal Appeal(H) 6094/2016) |
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) |
|
161 |
Death Reference 93/2015
((Criminal Appeal Nos. 9126, 9235,9346,10748 and 10049 of 2015) |
The State-Vs- Qamrul Islam and others |
|
|
162 |
Writ Petition 8437/2011
(with Writ Petition No. 10482/2011 with Writ Petition No. 4879 of 2012) |
Kamruzzaman Khan Vs.Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law,Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat,Ramna, Dhaka and others |
|
|
163 |
Death Reference 1/2016
(With Crl Appl 651/2016 , 1011/2016, 1107/2016, 7872/2016) |
The State Vs. Md. Foysal Bin Nayem @ Dip and Redoyanul Azad @ Rana |
|
|
164 |
Writ Petition 11078/2014 |
Rama Prasanna Bhattacharjee vs. Government of Bangladesh and others |
DO letter is not an official communication made by any machinery of the Republic. |
|
165 |
Criminal Misc 4397/2008
(Criminal Misc 4397/2008) |
Dr. Zubaida Rahman vs. The State and another |
|
|
166 |
Criminal Revision 2569/2016 |
Moudud Ahmed vs. The State and another |
|
|
167 |
Writ Petition 4403/2010 |
Raghib Rauf Chowdhury vs. Government of Bangladesh and others |
Regarding the appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh |
|
168 |
Writ Petition 6300/2016
(with W. P. 1699 of 2015 with W. P. 61 of 2016 with W.P. 1607 of 2016) |
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 |
|
|
169 |
Criminal Appeal(H) 4417/2016 |
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. |
|
170 |
Death Reference 31/2010
(Death Reference 31/2010 (Criminal Appeal No. 3404 of 2010 and Jail Appeal No. 158 of 2010)) |
The State -Vs- Abul Kashem Kha |
|
|
171 |
Death Reference 68/2010
(Death Reference 68/2010 (Criminal Appeal No. 3127 of 2015 and Jail Appeal No. 341 of 2010)) |
The State -Vs- Zakir Hossain and another |
|
|
172 |
Death Reference 70/2010
(Death Reference 70/2010 (Jail Appeal No. 361 of 2010 and Jail Appeal No. 362 of 2010)) |
The State-Vs- Md. Ramjan Sheikh and another |
|
|
173 |
Death Reference 49/2011
(Death Reference 49/2011 (Criminal Appeal No. 5763 of 2011 and Jail Appeal No. 245 of 2011)) |
The State-Vs-Mohammad Ali |
|
|
174 |
Death Reference 6/2009
(DeathReference06/2009) |
The State -Vs- Md. Saiful Islam and one another |
|
|
175 |
Death Reference 92/2015
(Crl. Apl. 9051 of 2015 with Crl. Apl. 9170 of 2015) |
The State Vs. Md. Sharif and Md. Mintu Khan |
|
|
176 |
Writ Petition 10023/2016 |
Md. Abdullah Md. Ehtesham Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs , Peoples Republic of bang, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others |
|
|
177 |
Writ Petition 10929/2015 |
Liberty Fashion Wears Limited Vs. Bangladesh Accord Foundation and others |
|
|
178 |
Criminal Misc 2893/2016
(Criminal Misc 2893, 2895, 2896, 2897, 2898 and 2899 of 2016) |
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. |
|
179 |
Criminal Revision 1440/2016 |
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) |
|
180 |
Criminal Revision 101/2017 |
Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. The State and another |
|
|
181 |
Writ Petition 10127/2015 |
Md. Faizul Islam and another Vs. Bangladesh and others |
|
|
182 |
Writ Petition 9864/2015 |
Syed Mehedi Ahmed Rumi Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary,Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, PoliceStation Shahbagh, Dhaka and others |
|
|
183 |
Writ Petition 9378/2015 |
Monir Ahmed Vs. Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others |
|
|
184 |
Writ Petition 2617/2015 |
Sarker Md. Tariqul Islam Vs.Mr. Shahiduzzaman, Director-General(Administration), Anti-Corruption Commission,Segunbagicha, Dhaka-1000. |
|
|
185 |
Writ Petition 6756/2007 |
Ms. Parvin Akther Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry |
|
|
186 |
Writ Petition 7650/2012 |
Z. I. Khan Panna Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of |
|
|
187 |
Writ Petition 13689/2012 |
Md. Moniruddin Ahmed Vs. Rajdhani Unnayan Katripakkhya represented by its |
|
|
188 |
Writ Petition 13389/2012 |
Miah Mohammad Abdul Nayem Vs. The Review Panel represented by its Chairman, Mr. Md. |
|
|
189 |
Writ Petition 9150/2007 |
Dr. Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir Vs.The Government of Bangladesh represented by the |
|
|
190 |
Writ Petition 8252/2015 |
S. M. Masud Hossain Dolon and others Vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others |
|
|
191 |
Criminal Revision 1062/2016 |
Durnity Daman Commission VS Monjur Morshed Khan and others |
It is our considered opinion that the Court cannot play into the hands of the investigating officer who designedly made a perfunctory investigation and misled the Commission and Court should act objectively in a correct perspective. |
|
192 |
Criminal Revision 2610/2016 |
Durnity Daman Commission Vs. Hussain Mohammad Ershad and others |
On perusal of the impugned order and materials before us, we have no hesitation to observe that the concerned public prosecutor as well the Commission have failed to show their due diligence in conducting the case and their negligence is not excusable. But, if we consider the allegations made against the accused persons that they incurred loss of taka more than 64 crore of State money for their personal gain and for the gain of others abusing their high position, then we have no other option but to hold that the prosecution should be given a chance to prove its case for the greater interest of the country. Because, the victim of financial crime is the every citizen of the country. |
|
193 |
Writ Petition 4912/2003 |
/ |
|
|
194 |
Writ Petition 13488/2015 |
Robin Chowdhury @ Misba Uddin Vs. Anti-Corruption Commission and others |
In other words, international law must be specially adopted or incorporated within the municipal legal system by way of implementing act of the legislature. Since the principle of ‘International Double Jeopardy’ has not been incorporated in the Ain of 2012 and as such there is no scope to enforce the said principle within our domestic legal system. |
|
195 |
Writ Petition 594/2001 |
Writ Petition 594/2001 |
|
|
196 |
Writ Petition 594/2001 |
Writ Petition 594/2001 |
|
|
197 |
Suo-Muto Rule 9/2016 |
The State Vs. Executive Magistrate Mohammad Rafiqul Islam also the Upazilla Nirbahi Officer of Sakhipur, Tangail and another |
|
|
198 |
Civil Revision 3843/2008 |
Md. Abul Kalam and others VS Md. Entaj Ali Sheikh and others |
Because of any fancy evasive objection or statement of the preemptee, it is not at all obligatory for the Trial Court to hold any inquiry to assess the actual consideration money of the case land under section 96(3)(b) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act. On the plea of a minor mistake or error of calculation caused due to latches of any particular lawyer, no Court shall deprive a party to the pre-emption case from exercising his statutory right, to
which he is otherwise entitled to. |
|
199 |
Writ Petition 798/2015 |
Badiul Alam Majumdar and others Vs. Information Commission, Bangladesh |
|
|
200 |
Writ Petition 12032/2013 |
Hazi Safiuddin Ahmed Vs. The Administrator of Waqfs Bangladesh and others |
Sections 32(4), 34, 43, 44 , 51 of the Waqfs Ordinance, 1962
Power of the Administrator in respect of appointment of Mutawalli :
The Waqfs Ordinance does not empower the Administrator of Waqfs to appoint mutawalli of a waqf estate in a casual manner or as a routine work. Save under exceptional situations/circumstances detailed in the various provisions of the Waqfs Ordinance as discussed above the Administrator has no authority or jurisdiction to appoint mutawalli of any waqf estate. In a normal situation i.e where the terms of the waqf deed in respect of appointment of mutawalli is clear and unambiguous and not inconsistent with Mahomedan Law or there is no dispute to be settled by the Court the prospective mutawalli would assume the office of mutawalli in terms of waqf deed and in that case the provisions of section 51 would follow. |
