Home : Supreme Court of Bangladesh

201

Criminal Appeal(H) 7225/2013

Criminal Appeal 7225/2013 Durnity Daman Commission Vs. Md. Tarique Rahman (absconding) and the State with Criminal Appeal No.7469 of 2013 Md. Gias Uddin Al- Mamun Vs. The State and another

202

Jail Appeal(H) 116/2011

Afangir @ Kalu Vs. The State

Explosive Substance Act, 1908 Section 4/6: Mere knowledge of an accused or his equivocal disclosure about existence of bomb-making powders during his police custody shall not expose him to any criminal liability of possessing or controlling that illegal substance. ... (Para 24)

203

Death Reference 49/2005

The State Vs. Nurul Islam Sarkar and Others.

204

Criminal Revision 830/2013

Md Majharul HoqueMonsur Vs Mir Kashim Chowdhury

Section 138 of the N.I. Act:The proceedings initiated on thepetition of complaint under section 138 of the N.I. Act cannot be hindered byor shackled with any proceeding initiated on an arbitration clause. Section 265C of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1898 andSection 138 of the N.I. Act:Whether the cheque in question wasdrawn against any liability or not is a pure question of fact and withoutawarding ample opportunity to sift those facts, anyone cannot be allowed toobstruct the course of justice depriving the complainant-opposite party, whomay prove his claims and allegations on trial.

205

Criminal Misc 42518/2014

Md. Golam Faruque Vs Md. SalimReza

All particulars relating to the date of receipt or the manner ofservice of the legal notice including other relevant parenthetical informationare bundle of facts and any discourse on those facts or their unerring decisionrequires in-depth scrutiny and threshing of the evidence to be produced intrial. So, mere non-disclosure of those facts in the petition of complaintcannot be a valid cause to make the entire proceedings liable to be quashed,which in true sense will deprive the complainant to prove his case on evidence.

206

Writ Petition 9989/2014

Advocate Asaduzzaman Siddiqui and others Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Division, Bangladesh Secretariat

207

Writ Petition 3669/2016

Lt. Sheikh Jamal Dhanmondi Club Ltd. Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Youth and Sports, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh and others

208

Writ Petition 11905/2015

Samia Rahman and others Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others

209

Writ Petition 3171/2015

Birampur Sonali Matshajibi Samabay Samity Ltd. Vs Government of Bangladesh and others

Demi-official letter: Its meaning, legal force etc.
Demi-official letter or official correspondence / communication, information, interchange has got no legal force nor have any binding effect or in other words, the recipient of a D.O letter is not legally bound to act in accordance with such letter. Where determination of rights, privilege etc. of person(s) are enshrined in law itself, the same cannot be curtailed or taken away by a mere request/recommendation of the member of Parliament or any other dignitary in the form of D.O letters or any other manner whatsoever.

Amendment of Quotation for Lease: Its Legal Effect
In the case of Niamatpur Matsajibi Samabya Samity vs. Government of Bangladesh and others ( Writ Petition No. 10603 of 2013) the point was raised and we ( to which both of us were parties, judgment delivered on 1.6.2014) observed that “viewed in this light, it is clear that in the bidding process initiated for lease of fisheries there is no scope for amendment / modification, alteration of or varying from the original bid quoted with the initial application or to file fresh application or submit fresh project subsequent to filing of the initial ones”. We see no reason to take departure from the view already taken by us.

Member of Parliament: Are oath bound not to allow their personal interest.
Members of parliament, according to the ‘Clause 5’ of THIRD SCHEDULE of the Constitution, are oath bound not to allow their personal interest to influence the discharge of their duties as members of Parliament. They are not above the law and must act in accordance with law. They are peoples’ representatives, which does not mean that by issuing D.O letters they can favour or dis-favour any particular people or group of people as and when they desire in disregard of law and the interest of the people in general.

210

First Appeal 292/2009

Abdul Khaleque Vs. The Government of Bangladesh represented by Deputy Commissioner, Narayangonj

If no date mentioned in the contract for sale, 6 months shall be deemed to be the period for performance of the contract as per Section 54A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and 1 year limitation as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908 will start after that period. Second part of third column can not override the first part of third column of Article 113.

211

Criminal Misc 11456/2015

Mst. Anjuara Khanam @ Anju Vs. The State and another

(Full Bench Decision): “Power of Tribunal u/s 27, Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain"

212

Criminal Revision 787/2016

Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. The State and another

213

First Appeal 188/2005

Sadharan Bima Corporation, Sadharan Bima Bhaban, 33, Dilkusha Commercial Area, Dhaka and another. Vs. Messrs Ahad Jute Mills Ltd. and others.

(Full Bench Decision): “We have considered the first part of clause (b) of Article 86 of the Limitation Act, which under the heading “Description of Suit” and described the policy of insurance, when the sum insured is payable after proof of the loss has been given to or received by the insurers. Here words “Payable” and “has been given to” are very significant, which means that the sum insured is payable when the proof of loss has been informed to the insurers. In other words it means that the amount of insurance is payable when the loss occurred has been communicated to the insurer with proof or the insurer got the information of the occurrence. All these are thus related to intimation to the insurer about the occurrence, and after such communication, the sum insured became payable. The word “loss” has been mentioned in the first and third part of Article 86(b) of the Limitation Act and the word “loss” referred to as an information of the loss to the insurer resulting from an occurrence and thus making the policy of insurance payable. The word “payable” as mentioned in the first part of the Article, relates to cause of action of the suit i.e. the plaintiff after intimation of proof of loss to the insurer the sum insured has become payable and the plaintiff thus entitle to get the same.”

“From a plain reading of the third part of Article 86(b) of the Limitation Act, which is under the heading “ Time from which period begins to run” provides that is shall run from the date of the occurrence causing the loss accordingly there is no doubt that the suit have to filed within three years from the date of occurrence causing the loss.”

214

Death Reference 135/2008

The State Vs. Mufti A. Hannan Munshi alias Abul Kalam and others

215

First Appeal 218/2014

Md. Mosaraf Hossain Vs. Delowara Begum and others

It is established that in suit for partition the value of the whole property which determines the jurisdiction of the court and not the value of the plaintiff’s share only

216

Writ Petition 3250/2014

Mohammad Ali Akond vs. Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka and others

We have gone through section 51 of the Jahangirnagar University Act, 1973 and found that the Writ Petitioner had equally efficacious and adequate remedy by way of appeal to the Chancellor of the University, where the Syndicate will necessarily be a party. According to section 51 of the Act of 1973, on receipt of appeal the Chancellor will send a copy thereof to the Syndicate seeking its opinion and if he is satisfied with the opinion given by the Syndicate, then may reject the appeal straightaway, in which case the aggrieved party may come with an application under article 102 of the Constitution. There is another option for the Chancellor in which case he will appoint an Inquiry Commission consisting of such persons having no involvement with affairs of the University and on the basis of the report of the Inquiry Commission and the recommendations of the Syndicate, the Chancellor shall decide the appeal. In view of the said provisions of appeal and the decision given by their Lordships in the Appellate Division, as referred to above, we are inclined to hold that at this stage both the Writ Petitions, as filed, under article 102 of the Constitution are not maintainable.

217

Civil Rule 996/2015

Civil Rule 996(V)(R)/2015 (Arising out of Civil Rule No. 739(FM) of 2015) Mohammad Alauddin Sikder and others vs. Md. Mujibur Rahman and others

For violating the order of injunction passed by the Hon`ble High Court Division, punishment given after holding judicial enquiry

218

Writ Petition 3363/2013

Osman Gazi Chowdhury VS Artha Rin Adalat, 4th Court, Dhaka and another

Section 41 of the Artharin Ain, 2003:
No writ is maintainable against a decree or post-decree order passed by Artharin Adalats:
It is the clear intention of the Legislature that a party to an Artharin Suit if aggrieved by a decree, must prefer an appeal. Since the Ain, 2003 is a special law with an overriding provision over other laws and has prescribed a special procedure, there is no scope to bypass the appellate forum, if the forum under Section 19(2) of the Ain, 2003 against an exparte decree is already not availed of by the party.
About 10 (ten) years ago, our Apex Court in the case of BADC -Vs-Artharin Adalat 59 DLR(6) urged the learned Advocates of this Court to be susceptive in filing a writ petition against any decree of the Artharin Adalat. But unfortunately the learned members of the Bar are coming up with the said writ petitions indiscriminately and thereby causing wastage of valuable time of this Court which is overwhelmingly overburdened with huge backlog of cases.
Writ is maintainable against a pre-decree order passed by Artharin Adalat. The only exception is that before passing the decree, if a party to an Artharin Suit feels aggrieved by an order, writ jurisdiction may be invoked as has been held in the case Sonali Bank Ltd Vs Asha Tex International 20 BLC 185.

219

First Misc Appeal 356/2015

Nur Mohammad Vs. Asen Ali and others

Civil Court can restrain the proceedings of Revenue authority in concern with mutation proceeding by granting temporary injunction

220

Civil Revision 2439/2013

Jogmaya Saha Roy Vs. Sree Shekhar Chandra Chakraborty and others

One who enters into a religious order severs his connection with the members of his natural family. He is accordingly excluded from inheritance. Entrance to a religious order is tantamount to civil death so as to cause a complete severance of his connection with his relations, as well as with his property. Neither he nor his natural relatives can succeed to each other’s properties

221

Writ Petition 7469/2003

Musa Kalimullah vs. Secretary, Water Resources, Ministry of Water Development and others

Ratio: The post of Stenographer is a promotion post and the decision of promotion is to be made on the basis of merit through open competition in which serving Steno-Typists and outsiders may take part. So, on being promoted as Stenographer he has become entitled again to get the benefits of a new-slot of time-scales subject to fulfilling essential conditions like- satisfactory service of 8, 12 or 15 years.

222

Writ Petition 7020/2006

Md. Imam Hasan and others vs. Secretary, Ministry of Education and others

Ratio: 1. In the scale of a lower post like L.D.A no employee can claim to count his service in a higher post like U.D.A. Under any circumstance an employee shall not be allowed to discharge the responsibility of any higher posts immediately after his appointment in a post lower than that. Ratio: 2. Government Order or policy decision, no employee serving on daily basis shall be entitled to get that period added or counted with his later service in the regular establishment.

223

Writ Petition 3009/2015

Meda Natun Hati Masthyajibi Samabay Samity Limited Vs Government of Bangladesh and others

সরকারি জলমহাল ব্যবস্থাপনা নীতি ২০০৯ It appears that the Rules, 2009 is silent about what criteria should be followed in ascertaining such distance where more than one samity apply for getting lease. But the preamble of ‘The Rules, 2009’ made it clear that the same has been promulgated with a view to giving preference to the real fishermen in granting lease which along with other provisions of the Rules, 2009 suggest that the riparian samity of fishermen of which most of the members live closer to the Fishery would get priority in getting lease. A fishermen community may live far off from the Fishery but for some other reasons may set up its office at a place close to the Fishery. If nearness of the office is taken to be the standard of measuring comparative distance of the contending societies unfair competition in setting up offices nearest to the fisheries is bound to follow to the detriment of the purpose of the law. This is a proposition which cannot be accepted in any view of the matter.(para 15)

224

Criminal Misc 2352/2016

Mohammad Hasan Vs. The State

225

Criminal Misc 289/2013

Md. Motiar Rahman vs The State and another

An accused is not entitled to jimma of seized property except where claim of right to possession of the same is prima facie lawful.

226

Civil Revision 2244/2007

Oli Ahmed Chowdhury being dead his legal heirs: 1(a). Jarina Begum and others Vs. Md. Osman Gani and others

Starting point of Limitation for filing a pre-emption case is the date, when the impugned sale deed has been registered under section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908

227

Writ Petition 2102/2002

Sarwar Alam Chowdhury being dead his legal heirs: 1(ka) Fazilatun Nessa Mimi and others vs Govt. of Bangladesh and others

Abandoned property: - For release of abandoned property, claimant have to prove that the owner or his legal heirs occupying supervising and managing the disputed property on 28.02.1972, while President`s Order No. 16 of 1972 came into force.

228

Income Tax Reference 159/2011

United International University vs The Commissioner of Taxes with Manarat Dhaka International College vs The Commissioner of Taxes

(Full Bench Decision): Private universities/colleges imparting education are not required to produce any exemption certificate or letter issued by NBR to get tax exemption in view of the provisions under SRO No. 454-L/80(a) dated 31.12.80 as amended by SRO No. 178-Income Tax/2002 dated 03.07.2002 issued by the NBR.

229

Income Tax Reference 172/2001

The Commissioner of Taxes vs Haji Mohammad Ali Meah Waqf Estate

(Full Bench Decision): The part of income of a private religious trust (Waqf), which is not applied or set a part for benefit of public but is applied or set a part for the benefit of Waqif and his descendants, is not entitled to get exemption of tax under Section 44 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 read with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part A of the Sixth Schedule thereto.

230

Income Tax Reference 82/2002

The Commissioner of Taxes vs Transfin Trading Ltd and others

(Full Bench Decision): In view of the proviso to Clause-(iii) of sub-section(1) of Section 29 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984, the Assessee is not entitled to allowance of deduction of interests paid on the capital borrowed by it for the purpose of its business or profession only in case of transfer of that capital or any part thereof to another entity whose income is exempted from payment of tax.

231

Writ Petition 1168/2013

Md. Abul Bashar vs Bangladesh and others

There is no such thing as unfettered administrative power. Govt. must follow the restrictive principles of law in exercising it`s power u/s 4 of the Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1947

232

Writ Petition 9656/2011

Md. Mujihid Zamil vs Commissioner of Customs

Writ Petition 9656/2011, WP 9567 of 2011, 9568 of 2011, 9569 of 2011, 9608 of 2011, 9653 of 2011, 9654 of 2011, 9655 of 2011, 9657 of 2011, 9659 of 2011, 9660 of 2011, 9661 of 2011, 9662 of 2011, 2993 of 2011, 9664 of 2011 and 9665 of 2011.(Against final assessment under Customs Act, 1969 appeal has to be filed under section 193 of the said Act and writ petition not maintainable)

233

Writ Petition 3843/2004

Noor Mohammad Khan Vs Govt. of Bangladesh

On Procedure for civil litigations under The Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation, 1900

234

Civil Revision 6253/2002

Sreemat Sudarshanananda Puri Gurupita Vs Sree Joy Prakash Mitra Chowdhury and others

Amendment of Pleading regarding admission can not be omitted by way of amendment.

235

Writ Petition 1481/2014

Kamal Uddin Ahmed Vs The Chairman, National Board of Revenue

IACT can invoke section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance, where the order passed by DCT is erroneous

236

Writ Petition 2931/2009

Roushanara Akter Vs Dhaka City Corporation

Gulshan Park, can not lease out to any third party for any other purpose.

237

Writ Petition 3652/2014

Muktar Gazi Vs Govt. of Bangladesh

Suspension of Chairman of Union Parishad on ground of conviction in criminal cases. Held: Due to pendency of appeal, conviction yet to reach its finality and as such the order of suspension has been declared as without lawful authority and be of no legal effect.

238

Writ Petition 1875/2013

Haji Tahir Ali Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh and others

Procedure for establishment of primary school on scheme.

239

Writ Petition 8130/2013

Md. Enamul Haque Kandu and others vs Government of Bangladesh and others (Absorption Case)

240

Customs Appeal 11/2003

/

241

Writ Petition 5020/2012