Home : Supreme Court of Bangladesh

51

Writ Petition 5380/2020

Islam Prodhan and another vs. The Government of Bangladesh and others

with the introduction of Rules, 2015 the question of Section 5 of the limitation Act, 2006 shall have clear application in filing of appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal.

52

Writ Petition 12318/2019

Hasina Jamshed and another vs. The Government of Bangladesh and others

The provisions in respect of revocation of power of attorney in Section 6 manifestly express that other then the discretion of revocation of power of Attorney by the executor there are some other added grounds equally applicable for revocation of power of attorney.

53

Writ Petition 5227/2018

মোহাম্মদ হুমায়ুন কবির ও অন্যান্য বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার ও অন্যান্য

54

Criminal Misc 39060/2018
(Criminal Misc 39060/2018)

Lt. Commander (Retd.) Md. Moslem Uddin VS The State and others

55

Criminal Appeal(H) 4688/2021

দুর্নীতি দমন কমিশন বনাম পার্থ গোপাল বনিক এবং অন্য

আমাদের বলতে দ্বিধা নেই যে, জেলা জজ পর্যায়ের একজন বিচারকের কাছ থেকে এ ধরনের আচরন ও কর্ম প্রত্যাশিত নয়। তাঁর এ ধরনের আদেশ উচ্চ আদালতের প্রতি অবজ্ঞা এবং যা আদালত অবমাননার সামিল। হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ ইতিপূর্বে আসামীর জামিন নাকোচ করে দ্রুত মামলার নিঃষ্পত্তির নির্দেশ দিয়েছিল। বিজ্ঞ বিচারক আসামীকে জামিন প্রদান করে হাইকোর্টের আদেশ-কে অবজ্ঞা (flout) করেছেন।

56

Criminal Appeal(H) 9135/2019

Sabbir Sheikh Vs. The State and another

The facts of non-reporting about the alleged marriage by the accused-appellant to the concerned Nikah Registrar under section 5(2) of Muslim Marriages and divorces (Registration) Act, 1974, making sexual relationship with the informant with her consent pretending to be his valid wife and his subsequent refusal to recognize the marriage ipso facto suggest that the accused-appellant had an initial intention to deceive her and to fulfil his ill desire he made sexual relationship with the informant in the name of a fake marriage. The above fact also suggests that the accused appellant with a false promise to register the marriage intentionally mislead the victim and convinced her with a falsehood for obtaining her consent to make sexual intercourse with him which is obviously a “deceitful means” as per the Explanation of section 9(1) of the Ain, 2000 and thus, he prima facie committed offence of rape punishable under section 9(1) of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000.

57

Writ Petition 1539/2021
(/)

Belayet Hosen -Vs- Anti Corruption Commission and others.

Without the permission of the Court concerned no one, even the Commission has got any power to pass any order of freezing or attachment or to impose any restrictions with regard to a property of a citizen of the country allegedly to have been acquired by illegal means i.e. `crime acquired property`.

58

Criminal Revision 3357/2019
(Criminal Revision 3357/2019)

Anti-Corruption Commission VS Md. Zahirul Islam and another

59

Criminal Misc 4779/2018

Shantanu Barua and others-Versus-The State and another

60

Criminal Revision 460/2019

Abul Hasan- Versus-Keramot Mollah and others

61

Criminal Misc 23990/2014

Md. Habibur Rahman and others-Versus-The State

62

Writ Petition 535/2019

ন্যাশনাল মেডিক্যাল এসোসিয়েশন অব বাংলাদেশ ও অন্যান্য বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার ও অন্যান্য

63

Criminal Misc 45010/2018

Sumaiya Tanvir @ Ayesha Panni and others- Versus- The State and another

64

Criminal Revision 1329/2017

Md. Abdul Latif Bhuiyan- Versus- The State and another

65

Criminal Revision 2792/2016
(Criminal Revision 2792/2016)

Mirza Abbas VS The State and another

66

Civil Revision 2255/2017

Md. Habibur Rahman Liton- Versus- Md. Anisur Rahman Badal

67

Civil Revision 750/2013

Ismat Ara Begum-Vs-Mahmuda Islam and others

68

Civil Revision 785/2012

Sree Sudhir Chandra Sarker and others -Versus- Sree Prodip Chandra Sen and others

69

Civil Revision 138/2012

Md. Quamruzzaman Talukdar-Versus-Md. Motiur Rahman and others

70

Civil Revision 627/2011

Sayeda Nurun Nahar Lucky and others-Versus- Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Brahmanbaria and others

71

Civil Revision 3641/2008

Sayed Md.Nurul Islam Miazi and others-Vs- Tajol Islam and another

72

Civil Revision 3970/2008

Md. Shafiqur Rahman and others-Versus-Ali Akbar and others

73

Civil Revision 2826/2008

Jahir Ahmed-Versus- Nurul Islam and others

74

Civil Revision 837/2005

Md. Mahmudul Haque Bhuiyan- Versus- Jesmin Akther Beauty

75

Civil Revision 4017/2001

Kulsum Bibi- Versus- Abdul Kader Munshi and others

76

Civil Rule 792/2014

Md. Ferdous Alom -Versus- Mosammat Akhinoor Begum

77

Death Reference 116/2017
(/)

The State-Versus- Washim Akter @ Tarek Hossain @ Tarek @ Marfat Ali and others

78

Criminal Revision 263/2011
(Criminal Revision 263/2011)

Begum Anar Kali and another VS The state and another

79

Writ Petition 1683/2014

বাংলাদেশ পরিবেশ আইনবিদ সমিতি (বেলা) বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার ও অন্যান্য

80

Criminal Misc 11914/2008
(Criminal Misc 11914/2008)

Syed Galib Ahmed and another VS The State and another

81

In re : Writ Petition 5147/2021
(Rule and Direction)

Md. Akramul Ahsan Kanchan Vs Government of Bangladesh and others

এজাহার/অভিযোগ দায়ের করার ক্ষেত্রে জাতীয় পরিচয় পত্র/পাসপোর্ট নম্বর ব্যবহার সম্পর্কিত নির্দেশনা।

82

Writ Petition 6049/2011

তানজিন বৃষ্টি বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার ও অন্যান্য

83

Writ Petition 1046/2021
(Writ Petition 1046/2021)

Md. Ahsan Habib Vs Government of the People`s Republic of Bangladesh

Present: Mr. Justice Md. Nazrul Islam Talukder And Mr. Justice Mohi Uddin Shamim

84

Writ Petition 6653/2012
(Writ Petition 6653/2012)

M. Asafuddowlah Vs. Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka.

The current trend of making/posting the Civil Servents as Officers on Special Duty (OSD) without assigning any special duty, whatsoever, beyond the scope of Circular No. Sa.Ma/ (Bi:Pro:)-12-90-03(200) dated 03.10.1991 and keeping them as OSD for unlimited period longer than the periods prescribed in the said Circular dated 03.10.1991.

85

Criminal Misc 20352/2009
(Criminal Misc 20352/2009)

Barrister Md. Aminul Hoque Vs The State and another

86

First Appeal 295/2017
(Civil Rule 610(F) of 2017 with Civil Rule 29(Vio)(F) of 2020)

Abdul Mazid Talukder and others Vs. Abdul Kader and others

Evidentiary value of Pantograph prepared by Survey- expert.

87

First Appeal 18/2019
(Civil Rule 611(F) of 2018)

Shirajul Islam Mollah and another Vs. Bangladesh Bank and others

A decision per-incurium is not a binding precedent.
When the Suit itself is barred by law, malafide can not be examined.

88

First Appeal 56/2013
(with Civil Rule no 159 (F) of 2013)

আব্দুল লতিফ বনাম মোহাম্মদ কামাল উদ্দীন এবং অন্যান্য

দালিলিক স্বাক্ষ্য গ্রহণ, চিহ্নিত করন, সাক্ষ্য মূল্য ইত্যাদি।
দেওয়ানী মামলা প্রমানের মানদন্ড।

89

Trademark Appeal 9/2011
(Trademark Appeal 09of2011)

DanishFoodsLtdvsThe registrarDepartment of Patents

90

Writ Petition 824/2021
(/)

মোঃ আতাউর রহমান ওরফে আতাউর রহমান বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার গং

সামগ্রিক অবস্থা বিবেচনায় নিয়ে আদালতের সুষ্পষ্ট ও সুনির্দিষ্ট অভিমত এই যে, দুর্নীতি দমন কমিশন সহ বিভিন্ন তদন্ত সংস্থা ও আইন শৃঙ্খলা রক্ষাকারী বাহিনীর উচিত হবে যে, অনুসন্ধান বা তদন্ত পর্যায়ে যে কোন অপরাধের সাথে জড়িত সন্দেহভাজন কোন ব্যক্তিকে দেশ ত্যাগে বারিত করার জন্য অবিলম্বে প্রয়োজনীয় আইন বা বিধি প্রনয়ন করা; এবং যতক্ষন পর্যন্ত এই ধরনের আইন বা বিধি প্রণয়ন করা না হবে ততক্ষন পর্যন্ত অন্তবর্তী ব্যবস্থা হিসেবে এখতিয়ার সম্পন্ন আদালতের নিকট এ ধরনের বারিত আদেশ প্রার্থনা করা এবং আদালতের অনুমতি গ্রহণ করা।

91

Civil Revision 3537/2016
(Civil Revision 3537/2016)

আভ্যন্তরীণ নৌ পরিবহন কর্তৃপক্ষ বনাম মোহাহের হোসেন বিশ্বাস

92

Writ Petition 3141/2019

Spice Television Private Limited vs. The Government of Bangladesh and others

Regarding allocation of frequency in favour of the petitioner’s Television Channel namely Spice Television Limited (Spice TV)

93

Writ Petition 1459/1998

Syed Ahmed Ali Aziz Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others

Regarding action of the respondents in cancelling the lease.

94

Criminal Appeal(H) 6799/2011
(Criminal Appeal(H) 6799/2011)

Md. Anis Miah vs The State

95

Writ Petition 5035/2020
(W.P. No.5035 of 2020 and W.P. No.6283 of 2020/)

Abdus Salam Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others

The question of bias or prejudice requires to be established and it cannot be inferred. It would have to be decided on the facts of each case. There could not be any general proposition of law to be laid down that in every case where the informant was the investigator, the trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal. The matter has to be decided on a case to case basis without any universal generalisation.

96

Writ Petition 13760/2018

savar thana osohai poribar ponurbason bohumukhi somobai somiti limited vs biggo judge orpito sompotti pottarpon appellate tribunal Dhaka and others

97

Criminal Revision 796/2016
(/)

Anti-Corruption Commission -Vs- Md. Abul Kashem and others

We have no other option but to hold that since section 10(4) of the Act of 1958 has authorised the Commission only to withdraw a case, the Government has nothing to do in such matter as the provision of section 494 of the Code shall not be applicable or come into play in respect of the scheduled offences under the Act of 2004 which are triable by the Special Judge constituted under the Act of 1958.

98

Writ Petition 7297/2019
(Writ Petition 7297/2019)

Banu, wife of late Md. Yasin, 13 Huts, Tejgaon Non-Local Relief Camp, 10/A, Post Office Mirpur-1216, Pallabi, Dhaka VS Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Secretariat Building, Ramna, Dhaka and others.

On an application under article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, this Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the detenue, namely, Md. Arman, now being detained in Kashimpur Jail-2 should not be brought before this court so as to it may satisfy itself that, he is not being held in custody/jail without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner and to set him at liberty and to declare the detention/ confinement of the detenue to be without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and why the respondents should not be directed or award appropriate compensation to the detenue for wrongful confinement and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this court may seem fit and proper.

99

Writ Petition 4611/2020

A.K.M Asiful Haque Vs. Secretary, Law and Justice and Division, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others

The words “public trial” denote public access to the court proceedings. In other words, public trial reflects “open justice” and any trial that grants access to the court or the venue at which court proceedings would take place will be regarded as “public trial”.

Article 35(3) of the Constitution of the people’s republic of Bangladesh mandates that the criminal proceeding of a court or tribunal shall be held in public. Public means, for the use of everyone without discrimination. Anything, gathering or audience which is not private is public. Obviously, a Judge’s Chamber is not a court hall to which the public will normally have any right of access. Courtrooms are considered as public place as opposed to the Judge’s Chambers for the simple reason that the Judicial Officers, the parties and their Counsels and any interested member of the public has unrestricted ‘access’ to it. With all due respect, if the Judge granted unrestricted access to his chamber to the parties and their Counsels and any interested member of the public, the chamber would move from a ‘private’ place to a ‘public place’. Same conditions when available in a remote hearing i.e access being granted to and available to Judicial Officers, the parties and their Counsels and any interested member of the public will make the venue of such remote/virtual hearing be it zoom, skype, whatsApp etc. a public place in line with the provisions of Article 35(3) of the Constitution. It is our opinion, therefore, that the apprehension whether remote hearings are in conformity with the constitutional requirement that the proceeding be in public, the answer would be that the Constitution did not say that such proceedings must be in a physical structure called a Courtroom. Once the proceeding in a remote/Virtual hearing through video conferencing is made accessible to everyone involved and any interested member of the public, then the condition as provided by Article 35(3) would be complied with.

100

Writ Petition 13256/2018
(with W.P. 14509 of 2018 with W.P. 14510 of 2018 with W.P. 262 of 2019)

A A M Ziaur Rahman Vs. Bangladesh and others

Direction given to conduct trial of all cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 only by the Courts of Joint Sessions Judges.