|
Case Number
|
Parties |
Short Description |
|
51 |
Civil Revision 3537/2016
(Civil Revision 3537/2016) |
আভ্যন্তরীণ নৌ পরিবহন কর্তৃপক্ষ বনাম মোহাহের হোসেন বিশ্বাস |
|
|
52 |
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) |
|
53 |
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. |
|
54 |
Criminal Appeal(H) 6799/2011
(Criminal Appeal(H) 6799/2011) |
Md. Anis Miah vs The State |
|
|
55 |
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. |
|
56 |
Writ Petition 13760/2018 |
savar thana osohai poribar ponurbason bohumukhi somobai somiti limited vs biggo judge orpito sompotti pottarpon appellate tribunal Dhaka and others |
|
|
57 |
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. |
|
58 |
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. |
|
59 |
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. |
|
60 |
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. |
|
61 |
Civil Revision 121/2018
(Civil Revision 121/2018) |
Javed Iqbal Khan VS Haji Md. Bahauddin |
|
|
62 |
Criminal Appeal(H) 833/1993
(Criminal Appeal No. 833 of 1993) |
Amzad Hossain alais Nahid VS The State. |
|
|
63 |
Civil Rule 690/2018
(Civil Rule 690(F)/2018) |
Saleha Khanam and two others versus Shamsul Haque and others |
|
|
64 |
Criminal Revision 1651/2017
(/) |
Md. Moti Matbor vs The State |
Narcotics Control Act,1990. Possession of 411 pieces of yaba tablets weighing 37.65 grams. `purity` test or `whole substance` test. Probation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 |
|
65 |
Writ Petition 14180/2019
(Writ cases) |
Sahanaz parvin -Vs- The Government of Bangladesh and others |
ভূয়া গ্রেফতারি পরোয়ানা রোধে নির্দেশনা সমূহ। |
|
66 |
Writ Petition 14538/2012
(/) |
Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh -Vs- Government of Bangladesh and others |
এ প্রসঙ্গে উল্লেখ করা আবশ্যক যে, সম্মানিত আইন প্রনেতাগণ আইন, ২০০০ প্রণয়নের ক্ষেত্রে বর্তমান প্রেক্ষাপট এবং ভবিষ্যতের প্রয়োজন অনুধাবন করে এ আইনটি প্রণয়ন করেছেন এবং এই আইনের ২ (চ) ধারায় প্রাকৃতিক জলাধার এর আওতায় মহানগী, বিভাগীয় শহর ও জেলা শহরের পৌর এলাকাসহ দেশের সকল পৌর এলাকার মাষ্টার প্লানে চিহ্নিত নদী, খাল, বিল, দীঘি, ঝর্ণা বা জলাশয় অথবা সরকার, স্থানীয় সরকার বা কোন সংস্থান কর্তৃক, সরকারী গেজেটে প্রজ্ঞাপন দ্বারা বন্যা প্রবাহ এলাকা হিসাবে ঘোষিত প্রাকৃতিক জলাধারের আওতায় আনা হয়েছে। এছাড়া সলল পানি এবঙ বৃষ্টির পানি ধারণ করে এমন কোন ভূমিও উক্ত প্রাকৃতিক জলাধারের আওতাভূক্ত করা হয়েছে। এক্ষেত্রে ব্যক্তি মালিকানাধীন কোন পুকুরকে উক্ত সংজ্ঞা থেকে বাদ দেয়া হয়নি বরং ইহা উক্ত আইনের ২ (চ) ধারায় প্রাকৃতিক জলাধারের সংজ্ঞাভূক্ত করা হয়েছে। |
|
67 |
Criminal Misc 37799/2017
(Criminal Miscellaneous No. 37799 of 2017) |
Rokib @ Rakibur Rahman vs The State |
|
|
68 |
Writ Petition 9204/2013
(with 9205) |
Marrine Vegetable Oil ltd and Jasmir Vegetable Oil Limited vs Bangladesh Oil Gas |
|
|
69 |
Writ Petition 2640/2011 |
Md.Ibrahim vs the Government of Bangladesh |
|
|
70 |
Suo-Muto Rule 3/2015 |
The state vs secretary, Ministry of land, Bangladesh sochibaloy,Dhaka and others |
|
|
71 |
Criminal Appeal(H) 1535/2020
(with Criminal Appeal 1536 of 2020) |
Md. Ershad Ali @ Md. Ershad Ullah Vs. The State and another |
|
|
72 |
Criminal Appeal(H) 1660/2016 |
Uthpal Kumar Roy and three others Vs. Meghnad Shaha and another |
The tribunal shall not take cognizance or frame charge of an offence punishable under section 11 (Ga) or 11(Ga)/30 of the Ain, 2000 against an accused without having a medical examination certificate from Government Hospital or any private Hospital, recognized by the Government for that purpose in view of the provision under section 32 of the said Ain in support of simple hurt of the victim wife. |
|
73 |
Writ Petition 7824/2016 |
মাধবদী বাজার কমিটি ও মার্চেন্ট এ্যাসোসিয়েশন ও অন্য বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার ও অন্যান্য |
|
|
74 |
Writ Petition 9263/2011 |
Orascom Telecom Bangladesh Limited Vs. Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission, Represented by its Chairman, IEB Bhaban, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others. |
|
|
75 |
Criminal Appeal(H) 10468/2017
(Criminal Appeal 10468/2017) |
Mahmudul Hasan Vs The State and another |
|
|
76 |
Death Reference 61/2011
(with Criminal Appeal 6592 of 2011 with Jail Appeal 50 of 2012 with Criminal Miscellaneous 50897 of 2013) |
The State vs Oli |
|
|
77 |
First Misc Appeal 166/2009 |
Md. Billal Hossain and another vs Md. ShawkatAli and ten others |
|
|
78 |
First Appeal 66/2001 |
Md. Abdur Razzaque and twelve others vs Md. Kabir Hossain and two others |
|
|
79 |
Criminal Appeal(H) 5310/2008 |
Md. Hafiz Ibrahim vs The State and another |
|
|
80 |
Criminal Appeal(H) 5009/2001
(with Criminal Miscellaneous 6634 of 2003 with Criminal Miscellaneous 27276 of 2012) |
Kalon vs The State |
|
|
81 |
Criminal Appeal(H) 1654/2004 |
Siddique Farazi vs The State |
|
|
82 |
Criminal Misc 53438/2017
(Criminal Misc 53438/2017) |
Rezwanur Rab Zia VS The State and another |
Section 65 of the Evidence Act does not provide any power to the Court to treat or admit a private document as primary or secondary evidence upon an application of either of the parties to a judicial proceeding without any formal proof thereof. |
|
83 |
Criminal Appeal(H) 248/2011
(with Crl Appeal 328 of 2011 with Crl Appeal 394 of 2011 with Crl Appeal 533 of 2011 with Crl Appeal 7127 of 2011 with Crl Appeal 149 of 2011 with Crl Miscellaneous 501 of 2019) |
Abdul Quddus Khan Salafi Vs. The State |
|
|
84 |
Criminal Appeal(H) 6513/2019 |
Md. Ibrahim Vs. The State |
The Registrar General of Bangladesh Supreme Court is hereby directed to issue a “General Circular” to all the Judges/ Magistrates having exercising criminal jurisdiction containing the following directions:
1. The Court below shall not cancel the bail of an accused granted by the High Court Division without any allegation of proven misuse of the privilege of bail by the accused.
2. When an accused is enjoying the privilege of ad-interim bail granted by the High Court Division for a limited period in a pending rule under section 498 of the Cr.P.C or in an appeal against under special law and he/she is regularly appearing before the Court below, his/her bail shall not be cancelled and cannot be taken him/her into jail custody by the Court below only on the ground that he/she could not submit bail extension order from the High Court Division.
3. In the event of unavailability of such extension order, the Courts below must wait for the result of the rule or the appeal, as the case may be, in which the accused was granted ad-interim bail.
4. Learned Judges of the Courts below shall not cancel bail of an accused granted by the High Court Division in pending rule or appeal until and unless the rule is discharged or the appeal is dismissed or in any way the accused violates any condition of bail, if any, imposed by the High Court Division at the time of granting bail” |
|
85 |
Criminal Misc 23744/2017 |
Zahanara Begum-Vs- The State and another |
|
|
86 |
Criminal Revision 556/2012 |
Md. Anwar Hossain-Vs-the State |
|
|
87 |
Criminal Misc 19204/2017 |
Syeda Hamza- Vs- The State |
|
|
88 |
Criminal Appeal(H) 248/2011
(Criminal Appeal(H) 248/2011) |
Abdul Quddus Khan Salafi Vs The State |
|
|
89 |
Writ Petition 12889/2012 |
নাদিম জারার বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার ও অন্যান্য |
|
|
90 |
Writ Petition 9397/2013 |
Mrs. Sitara Siddiq Vs. Government of the people’s Republic of Bangladesh and others |
|
|
91 |
Writ Petition 1207/2002 |
মো: আশরাফ ইয়াহিয়া বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার ও অন্যান্য |
|
|
92 |
Writ Petition 10371/2006 |
আনীসুর রহমান এবং অন্য একজন বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার ও অন্যান্য |
|
|
93 |
In re : VC Writ Petition 7/2020
(In re : VC Writ Petition 07/2020) |
Niaz Muhammad Mahboob vs Bangladesh and others. |
United Hospital,Dhaka. |
|
94 |
VC Criminal Misc. Case 460/2020
(VC Criminal Misc. Case 460/2020 (Main Court no. 21)) |
রন হক সিকদার ও অন্য বনাম রাষ্ট্র এবং অন্যান্য |
|
|
95 |
VC Civil Revision 3199/2015
(/) |
Tapan Kumar Biswas Vs. Bibhutosh Bishwas and others |
|
|
96 |
VC First Appeal 288/2013
(/) |
Kalipada Boiragi and others vs. Khagen Boiragi and others |
|
|
97 |
Writ Petition 230/2017 |
এস. এম আফজালুল হক বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার ও অন্যান্য |
|
|
98 |
In re : VC Writ Petition 22/2020
(with In re : VC Writ Petition 64 of 2020 with In re : VC Writ Petition 65 of 2020 with In re : VC Writ Petition 66 of 2020 with In re : VC Writ Petition 67 of 2020) |
শেখ আব্দুল্লাহ আল মামুন বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার গং সংগে এ, এম, জামিউল হক গং বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার গং সংগে আইনুন্নাহার সিদ্দীকা গং বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার গং সংগে জাস্টিস ওয়াচ ফাউন্ডেশন বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার গং সংগে অ্যাড. মো: মাহবুবুল ইসলাম বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার গং |
|
|
99 |
VC Civil Rule 444/2019
(/) |
Kolim Uddin and others Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Chapainawabganj and others |
|
|
100 |
Writ Petition 3817/2020
(Writ Petition No. 3817 of 2020) |
|
|
