Judgment : High Court Division Full List
 
Case Type
Case/Tender Number
Year
Parties
Short Description
 

Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Mosaraf Hossain Vs The state and another
When a Naraji Petition is filed by the aggrieved prson the tribunal after examination ought to have sent the matter for further inquiry as per section 27(1ka) and (ka) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain,2000 because by now it is settled that Naraji Petition is a fresh complaint. The Tribunal did not take cognizance offence on the basis of police report, nor it directed for further investigation on the basis of Naraji Petition under section 202 of the code of criminal procedure as such the taking cognizance of offence on the basis of naraji petition without examining the complainant under section 200 is without jurisdiction, unlawful and abuse of the processes of the court. “It is evident from the materials on record that the incident of assault on the complainant is alleged to have occurred on 06.02.2009, whereas the accused husband claims to have divorced the complainant on 19.01.2009. The High Court Division observed that since the divorce took place earlier, the victim was not supposed to be present in the house of her husband after 19.01.2009”.
2
3
4
5
Md. Majibar Rahman and others vs Mafizal Haque and others
6
Md. Abdul Jabbar Miah vs Md. Abdul Hannan and another
disposed of
7
Md. Abdul Mannan
8
Sujit Sarker and others vs The Government of the People`s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Primary and Mass Education, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others
Absolute
9
Bangladesh Power Development Board represente by its Chairman WAPDA Building, 1st Floor, Motijheel Commercial Area, Dhaka-1000.-Vs-Sinha Power Generation Company Limited, Head Office, Mohakhali Tower, 13th Floor, 82, Mohakhali C/A, Dhaka-1212.
Discharged
10
Mia Mohammad Jashimuddin Babul
11
Sheikh Abdul Ali and another
12
S.M. Golam Haider -Versus- The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Secondary and Higher Education Division, Ministry of Education, Secretariat Building, Ramna, Dhaka and others
13
Md. Masudul Hasan -Versus- Biman Bangladesh Airlines Limited, represented by its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer(CEO), Balaka Bhaban, Kurmitola, Dhaka and others
14
Dhali Construction Limited and M/S. Gazi Construction Limited (JV) represented by their authorized representative Gazi Moklesur Rahman. -Versus- Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works, Public Works Department, Bangladesh Secretariat, Shahbagh, Dhaka and others
15
Shahnaj Parvin and others -Versus- The Government of Bangladesh, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives, Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others,
16
Nasrin Akter -Versus- The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Secondary and Higher Education Division, Ministry of Education, Secretariat Building, Ramna, Dhaka and others.
17
Md. Amir Hossain -Versus- The State and another
18
Abdur Rahman Khan and others
19
Barrister Masood R. Sobhan and another VS The State and another
20
Md. Ekramul Haq VS Government of Bangladesh and others
21
Md. Rakibuzzaman Khan VS Government of Bangladesh and others
22
Md. Mostafizur Rahman and others VS Salma Begum and another
23
Mst. Nasrin Jahan (Smrity) VS Md. Alim Hossen and others
24
Mohiuddin Ahmed @ Khokon Son of Karomuddin Ahmmed @ Badsha Miah, of Jordan Road, Barisal Sador, Police StationKatwali Model Thana, District-Barisal. … Appellant -VersusBangladesh House Building Finance corporation represented by Regional Manager, Regional Office, Nirala Coimplex-999, Amir Kuthir Lane, Alekand Road, 919, Amir Kuthir Lane, Alekanda Road, Barisal- 8200 …Respondent
25
Md. Abdul Jabbar and others ....... Petitioners -VersusRafiquddin Sarker and others ...... Opposite Parties
26
Eagle Box Carton Manufacturing Company Limited. ... Petitioner (Defendant No.1 in Money Suit No.33 of 2009 and Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 129 of 2010). -VersusBangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Industries and others ... Opposite Parties (Plaintiffs in Money Suit No.33 of 2009 and defendants in Title Suit No.129 of 2010).
27
Md. Farid Miah vs National Board of Revenue and others.
On a plain reading of the above it appears that the authority concerned is empowered to lock BIN of the person concerned in order to recover any pending demand of VAT, supplementary duties, turn over tax, penalty or fine in the manner as prescribed therein.
The respondents, however, did not come forward with any affidavit in opposition with relevant documents controverting the assertion of the petitioner with regard to pending demand.
In view of the position of law and facts, we have no manner of doubt to find that locking the Business Identification Number (BIN) of the petitioner bearing No.003071036-0304 under Reference No.7/vat (226)/ dapucom /it/ binlock/2022/628 (Annexure-D) without any demand pending against him is unlawful for having been done in violation of Section 95 of the Value Added Tax and Supplementary Duty Act, 2012.
28
Thai Foils and Polymer Industries Limited vs Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others.
It is an admitted position of fact that challenging the adjudicating order dated 05.09. 2022 passed under Nothi No.4 /Musak (686)Kar Fakhi/Thai Foils/Bichar/ Purbo-Comi:/2022/3322 by the Commissioner, Customs, Excise and VAT Commissionerate, Dhaka (East), Dhaka, the respondent No.2 the petitioner as appellant preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka, under Section 122 of the VAT and Supplementary Duty Act, 2012. However, in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal a delay of 428(Four hundred twenty eight ) days has occurred. The Tribunal concerned ultimately dismissed the appeal having not been convinced about the cause of delay so has occasioned while preferring the appeal.
The power to condone the delay by the Tribunal is discretionary. However, the assertion of the petitioner is that the appeal in question has been preferred in due compliance of law i.e., upon fulfillment of the requirement of payment over the demand in question and that for dismissal of the said appeal the petitioner has become non-suited.
29
Most Rokeya Begum and others Vs. Most. Parul Begum and others
Disposed of.
30
Md. Mokter Hossain, son of late Akbor Ali of villageShibrampur Pachimpara, Police Station-Shahzadpur, District- Sirajgonj.-Vs-Md. Pashan Ali and others
Discharged
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Alhaj Abdur Rahim Vs. Alhaj Shafiq Uddin and others
Discharged.
42
Commissioner of Customs, Customs Bond Commissionarate, 342/1, Segunbagicha, Dhaka vs Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Jiban Bima Bhaban (3rd floor), 10 Dilkusha Commercial Area, Dhaka and another
43
The Oriental Bank Limited (At present ICB Islamic Bank Limited) vs The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others
44
45
46
47
48
49
মোছা নাজমা আক্তার বনাম কাছুম আলী এবং অন্যান্য গং
50
Khan Md. Akhtaruzzaman vs Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka and others