Home : Supreme Court of Bangladesh

201

Death Reference 6/2009
(DeathReference06/2009)

The State -Vs- Md. Saiful Islam and one another

202

Death Reference 92/2015
(Crl. Apl. 9051 of 2015 with Crl. Apl. 9170 of 2015)

The State Vs. Md. Sharif and Md. Mintu Khan

203

Writ Petition 10023/2016

Md. Abdullah Md. Ehtesham Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs , Peoples Republic of bang, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others

204

Writ Petition 10929/2015

Liberty Fashion Wears Limited Vs. Bangladesh Accord Foundation and others

205

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.

206

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)

207

Criminal Revision 101/2017

Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. The State and another

208

Writ Petition 10127/2015

Md. Faizul Islam and another Vs. Bangladesh and others

209

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

210

Writ Petition 9378/2015

Monir Ahmed Vs. Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others

211

Writ Petition 2617/2015

Sarker Md. Tariqul Islam Vs.Mr. Shahiduzzaman, Director-General(Administration), Anti-Corruption Commission,Segunbagicha, Dhaka-1000.

212

Writ Petition 6756/2007

Ms. Parvin Akther Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry

213

Writ Petition 7650/2012

Z. I. Khan Panna Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of

214

Writ Petition 13689/2012

Md. Moniruddin Ahmed Vs. Rajdhani Unnayan Katripakkhya represented by its

215

Writ Petition 13389/2012

Miah Mohammad Abdul Nayem Vs. The Review Panel represented by its Chairman, Mr. Md.

216

Writ Petition 9150/2007

Dr. Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir Vs.The Government of Bangladesh represented by the

217

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

218

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.

219

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.

220

Writ Petition 4912/2003

/

221

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.

222

Writ Petition 594/2001

223

Writ Petition 594/2001

224

Suo-Muto Rule 9/2016

The State Vs. Executive Magistrate Mohammad Rafiqul Islam also the Upazilla Nirbahi Officer of Sakhipur, Tangail and another

225

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.

226

Writ Petition 798/2015

Badiul Alam Majumdar and others Vs. Information Commission, Bangladesh

227

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.

228

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

229

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)

230

Death Reference 49/2005

The State Vs. Nurul Islam Sarkar and Others.

231

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.

232

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.

233

Writ Petition 9989/2014

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

234

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

235

Writ Petition 11905/2015

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

236

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.

237

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.

238

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"

239

Criminal Revision 787/2016

Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. The State and another

240

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.”

241

Death Reference 135/2008

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

242

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

243

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.

244

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

245

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.

246

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

247

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

248

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.

249

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.

250

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)