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

Case Number Parties Short Description
51
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
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
মোহাম্মদ হুমায়ুন কবির ও অন্যান্য বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার ও অন্যান্য
54
Lt. Commander (Retd.) Md. Moslem Uddin VS The State and others
55
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
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
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
Anti-Corruption Commission VS Md. Zahirul Islam and another
59
Shantanu Barua and others-Versus-The State and another
60
Abul Hasan- Versus-Keramot Mollah and others
61
Md. Habibur Rahman and others-Versus-The State
62
ন্যাশনাল মেডিক্যাল এসোসিয়েশন অব বাংলাদেশ ও অন্যান্য বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার ও অন্যান্য
63
Sumaiya Tanvir @ Ayesha Panni and others- Versus- The State and another
64
Md. Abdul Latif Bhuiyan- Versus- The State and another
65
Mirza Abbas VS The State and another
66
Md. Habibur Rahman Liton- Versus- Md. Anisur Rahman Badal
67
Ismat Ara Begum-Vs-Mahmuda Islam and others
68
Sree Sudhir Chandra Sarker and others -Versus- Sree Prodip Chandra Sen and others
69
Md. Quamruzzaman Talukdar-Versus-Md. Motiur Rahman and others
70
Sayeda Nurun Nahar Lucky and others-Versus- Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Brahmanbaria and others
71
Sayed Md.Nurul Islam Miazi and others-Vs- Tajol Islam and another
72
Md. Shafiqur Rahman and others-Versus-Ali Akbar and others
73
Jahir Ahmed-Versus- Nurul Islam and others
74
Md. Mahmudul Haque Bhuiyan- Versus- Jesmin Akther Beauty
75
Kulsum Bibi- Versus- Abdul Kader Munshi and others
76
Md. Ferdous Alom -Versus- Mosammat Akhinoor Begum
77
The State-Versus- Washim Akter @ Tarek Hossain @ Tarek @ Marfat Ali and others
78
Begum Anar Kali and another VS The state and another
79
বাংলাদেশ পরিবেশ আইনবিদ সমিতি (বেলা) বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার ও অন্যান্য
80
Syed Galib Ahmed and another VS The State and another
81
Md. Akramul Ahsan Kanchan Vs Government of Bangladesh and others
এজাহার/অভিযোগ দায়ের করার ক্ষেত্রে জাতীয় পরিচয় পত্র/পাসপোর্ট নম্বর ব্যবহার সম্পর্কিত নির্দেশনা।
82
তানজিন বৃষ্টি বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার ও অন্যান্য
83
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
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
Barrister Md. Aminul Hoque Vs The State and another
86
Abdul Mazid Talukder and others Vs. Abdul Kader and others
Evidentiary value of Pantograph prepared by Survey- expert.
87
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
আব্দুল লতিফ বনাম মোহাম্মদ কামাল উদ্দীন এবং অন্যান্য
দালিলিক স্বাক্ষ্য গ্রহণ, চিহ্নিত করন, সাক্ষ্য মূল্য ইত্যাদি।
দেওয়ানী মামলা প্রমানের মানদন্ড।
89
DanishFoodsLtdvsThe registrarDepartment of Patents
90
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
আভ্যন্তরীণ নৌ পরিবহন কর্তৃপক্ষ বনাম মোহাহের হোসেন বিশ্বাস
92
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
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
Md. Anis Miah vs The State
95
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
savar thana osohai poribar ponurbason bohumukhi somobai somiti limited vs biggo judge orpito sompotti pottarpon appellate tribunal Dhaka and others
97
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
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
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
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.
This Site is Visited :