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

Case Number Parties Short Description
251 Mst. Anjuara Khanam @ Anju Vs. The State and another (Full Bench Decision): “Power of Tribunal u/s 27, Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain"
252 Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. The State and another
253 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.”
254 The State Vs. Mufti A. Hannan Munshi alias Abul Kalam and others
255 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
256 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.
257 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
258 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.
259 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
260 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
261 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.
262 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.
263 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)
264 Mohammad Hasan Vs. The State
265 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.
266 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
267 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.
268 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.
269 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.
270 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.
271 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
272 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)
273 Noor Mohammad Khan Vs Govt. of Bangladesh On Procedure for civil litigations under The Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation, 1900
274 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.
275 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
276 Roushanara Akter Vs Dhaka City Corporation Gulshan Park, can not lease out to any third party for any other purpose.
277 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.
278 Haji Tahir Ali Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh and others Procedure for establishment of primary school on scheme.
279 Md. Enamul Haque Kandu and others vs Government of Bangladesh and others (Absorption Case)
280 /
281 Md. Mahabub Alam vs Bangladesh and others (Police Constable Case)
282 Writ Petition 5834/2010
283 Md. Altaf Hossain vs. The State
284 Md. Abdul Wares Vs Md. Amidul Islam
285 Md. Atar Ali Vs Seraj Miah
286 Chitta Ranjan Bakshi
287 Nazrul Fakir Vs Sreedeb Kumar Ghose
288 constitution of bd
289 মো: মিলন হোসেন বনাম রাষ্ট্র ও অন্য একজন
290 Uzzal Kumar Biswas Vs Md. Golam Ambia (Harun)
291 Md. Masud Haider Vs Md. Golam Ambia (Hsarun)
292 First Misc Appeal 64/2013
293 First Appeal 30/2014
294 Md. Wahed Miah Vs Abdul Khaleque
295 Secretary, Railway Division, Ministry of Communication, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka Vs Md. Shahidullah alias
296 Md. Nurul Amin Sekander @ Kajal Fakir
297 Lutfurnnahar Vs Mrs. Taran bibi
298 Ain-O-Salish Kendro and others vs Bangladesh and others (Purbachal Case)
299 Alhaj Md. Maruf Hasan Swapon Vs Kohinur Aziz
300 Md. Aman Ullah Dewan Vs Md. Abdur Rob Akonda
This Site is Visited :