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

Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Pochondor Ali and others vs Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Sunamganj and others
Absolute in part
2
Moslem Gazi and others -Versus- Md. Ismail and others
Disposed of
3
Towhid Samad and others Vs. The Registrar, Joint Stock Companies and Firms and others.
Dismissed
4
Mohd. Akhtaruzzaman vs Government of Bangladesh and others.
...
5
Nasiruddin Mollah and others … Pre-emptee-Petitioners -Versus- Motaleb Mollah and others ...Pre-emptor -Opposite Parties
Discharged
6
Abul Kashem and another ... Defendant-Appellants -Versus- Sufia Begum being died her heirs 1(1) Abul Hossain and others ... Plaintiff-Respondents
Allowed
7
Md. Shafiqul Islam ... Convict-Appellant -Versus- The State and another ... Respondents
The appeal is allowed
8
Abdul Kuddus Khan ... Appellant -Versus- The State and another ... Respondents
The appeal is dismissed
9
Md. Abdul Jalil, being dead, his legal heirs:- 1(a) Most Nazma Begum and others -Versus- Md. Azam Ali Miah, being dead, his legal heirs:- 1(a) Malek Miah and others
Absolute with costs
10
Shukur Ali Master and others -Versus- Doraj Kazi and others
.
11
Mohammad Ali and others Vs. Abdul Jabber alias Vatesh and others
It is well settled that an order of remand is not to be made as a matter of course. Remand should not be ordered merely to enable a party to fill up a lacuna caused by his own negligence or laches. At the same time, where the Court is satisfied that a party was prevented from effectively contesting the suit for reasons not attributable to deliberate or culpable conduct on his part, and that denial of an opportunity to contest would cause substantial prejudice, the Court may, in the interest of justice, exercise its discretion to remand the matter.

A compromise between some of the parties cannot, in law, operate to extinguish or adversely affect the independent rights claimed by non-consenting parties without adjudication of their claims.
12
Shahe Alam Kazi and others Vs Shahe Alam and others
Absolute
13
Md. Shibul Hossain vs. The state
Absolute
14
Rafiqul Islam and another -Versus- The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Primary and Mass Education, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka-1000; and others
Disposed of
15
Prof. Dr. Abul Kashem. -Versus- Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and Firms and others.
i) Dispatching notice packages via a private commercial courier agency constituted "personal service." This argument misconstrues the legal nature of personal service. Personal service in company law requires direct physical delivery by an officer, agent, or employee acting directly on behalf of the company to the recipient member. When a company hands over thousands of sealed envelopes to an independent third-party commercial courier company, it engages an intermediary logistics provider. The courier`s sub-agents or delivery staff are not company officers delivering notice personally; they are executing a contract of carriage. Courier delivery cannot be conflated with personal delivery. ii) Equally untenable is the proposition that courier delivery is equivalent to "service by post." In statutory construction, "post" refers specifically to the statutory postal system operated under the authority of the State (e.g., the Post Office Act). The legal deeming presumption established under Article 86(2) and reflected in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 attaches strictly to letters placed in the official postal network with postage prepaid. Courts cannot stretch clear contractual text to read private commercial courier services into the word "post." While modern commercial practice frequently uses courier networks for speed and tracking, corporate constitutions must be amended through proper general body resolutions if modern delivery methods are to be adopted. Until the Articles are formally altered, the company remains bound by its existing contractual provisions.
16
Manikganj Power Generations Limited.-Versus- Yew Choon Private Limited
i) The distinction between the legal burden and the evidential burden must be carefully maintained. The legal burden of establishing the claim remained throughout upon the respondent as claimant. However, once the respondent/claimant had adduced evidence capable of supporting its case, the Tribunal was fully entitled to examine whether the petitioner had produced evidence explaining or rebutting facts lying particularly within its “own knowledge”. The Tribunal`s observations regarding the inadequacy of the petitioner`s evidence, therefore, relate to the weight and sufficiency of the rebuttal evidence rather than to any impermissible reversal of the legal burden of proof. ii) In substance, the petitioner`s grievance is that the Tribunal ought to have attached greater weight to the petitioner`s evidence and lesser weight to the respondent`s evidence. Such a contention goes to the appreciation of evidence rather than to the legality of the award. Section 43 does not permit this Court to undertake a fresh evaluation of the evidence for the purpose of determining whether another conclusion would have been preferable. iii) After considering the overall outcome of the arbitration, the Tribunal regarded the respondent as the substantially successful party and exercised the statutory discretion vested in it under section 38 by directing the petitioner to bear the respondent`s costs. Such an exercise of discretion cannot be said to be irrational merely because another tribunal, or even this Court, might have apportioned the costs differently. To interfere with the award of costs in the present case would require this Court to substitute its own discretion for that of the Tribunal. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the limited supervisory jurisdiction conferred by section 43 of the Arbitration Act and would undermine the legislative policy of according finality to arbitral awards.
17
Rokaiya Nasrin, -Versus- Neptune Cold Storage Ltd. and others
If the pre-emption provision was intended to protect the existing shareholders against the introduction of an outsider, a shareholder intending to exercise that right would reasonably be expected to assert it when the proposed transfer came to his or her knowledge. Yet, even after the Petitioner expressly sought rectification by her letters dated 21.01.2016 and 09.02.2016, no shareholder came forward either to purchase the shares or to object on the ground that he or she intended to exercise the right of pre-emption. Nor has any competing claim been asserted throughout the prolonged pendency of the present proceeding. In these circumstances, the Court is not persuaded that the pre-emption clause can now be invoked merely as a technical objection to the Petitioner`s claim when the very persons for whose benefit the provision was incorporated have, with full knowledge of the transaction and the Petitioner`s claim, neither exercised nor asserted the right for many years. Their prolonged and conscious inaction, in the circumstances of the present case, amounts to waiver or acquiescence in the transfer and substantially undermines the Respondents` reliance upon the pre-emption provision.
18
Md. Kobir Uddin Biswas vs The State and another
s. 138A NI Act has overriding effect over s. 246(2A) of the Cr.PC.
19
Bengal Aitken Spence Travels Limited-Vs-Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism
Absolute in part with direction
20
Md. Eftekharul Islam-Vs-The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief and others
Absolute with direction
21
Md. Mostofa Jaman Sheikh and others-Vs-Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Youth and Sports and others
Absolute with direction
22
Janata Bank Ltd Vs. M/S Hoque Commercial Syndicate and others
Allowed
23
Md. Asaduzzaman vs The Government of Bangladesh
Discharged
24
Md. Nure Alam Vs. Md. Mamun and others
..
25
Mr. S.M. Zahid Hasan versus Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Banking Division), Secretariat Building, Ramna, Dhaka and others
Absolute
26
Kartik Chandra Sarker and another versus The Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat, Shahbag, Dhaka and others
Disposed of
27
Md. Balal Hossain and others versus The Secretary, Bangladesh Parliament, Sher-E-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka-1207 and others
Absolute
28
Md. Manik Hossain versus The Secretary, Bangladesh Parliament, Sher-E-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka-1207 and others
Absolute
29
Md. Homayun Kabir and others versus Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Senior Secretary, Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat, Secretariat Building, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others
Disposed of
30
Hosneara Begum Wife of the late Professor Rafiqul Islam House No. 5/11, Block-B, Humayun Road, Mohammadpur, Dhaka versus Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others
Discharged
31
The State -Versus- Md. Nayem @ Mohiuddin Nayem
Rejected
32
The State -Versus- Parvez Alam Sumon and another
Rejected
33
The State -Versus- Md. Nazmul (absconding) and others
Rejected
34
Government of Bangladesh and others. Vs. Khulna Divisional Ship owners Groups, Khulna.
The effect of section 28A of the Arpita Sampatti Protyarpan Ain, 2001, therefore, is that a property included in the Kha Schedule on the Gazette loses its character as vested property and is deemed never to have been included in the vested-property list. However, such cancellation does not, by itself, confer title upon any private claimant; the title, possession or other rights in respect of the property may still be determined in accordance with the prevailing law. The provision also preserves the right of the Government or any person to seek an appropriate remedy under the prevailing law in respect of any right, title or interest in the property.
35
The State .... petitioner -Versus- Liton Mondal (absconding) .... condemned-convict
Accordingly, the reference is rejected. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. The condemned-convict is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. The warrant of arrest, if any shall be recalled.
36
The State .... petitioner -Versus- Md. Nur Islam .... condemned-prisoner
Consequently, the reference is accepted. The sentence of death imposed by the Tribunal is hereby upheld. The criminal appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the jail appeal is accordingly disposed of.
37
Md. Dulal Hosen -vs- The State and another
Disposed of
38
Md. Shahjahan Sardar being dead his heirs and successors- Mahfuza Begum and others -Versus- Sree Sree Laxmi Narayan Guak Thakur and others
The First Appeal is dismissed.
39
Most. Ayesha Bibi and others Vs. Md. Selim Shikder and others
The Rule is hereby discharged.
40
Md. Nurul Amin and others-Vs-Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Secondary and Higher Education Division, Ministry of Education and others
Disposed of
41
Mohammed Idris, son of late Nur Ahmmad, House No. 66/A-2 (Western side of the First Floor), Road No. 03, Nasirabad Housing Society, Chattogram versus The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka-1000 and others
Disposed of
42
Md. Ibrahim Nurunnabi Helal and another ... defendant-Petitioners Versus Md. Abul Hossain and others …Plaintiff-Opposite Parties
Disposed of
43
Binod Kumar Mali and others ...... Defendant-Petitioners Versus Golam Faruk Khan Kaiser ...... Plaintiff-Opposite party
Discharged
44
Md. Abul Kalam Azad … Petitioner Versus Mohsin Ali and another ... Opposite parties
Discharged
45
A.K.M. Fazlul Haque and others ... Plaintiff-Appellants -Versus- Secretary, Baitul Aman Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and others ... Defendant-Respondents
Disposed of
46
Most. Malek Rahman and others Vs. Alhaj Mohammad Monjurul Alam set and others.
The First Appeal is allowed.
47
Happy -vs- The State and another
Absolute
48
Md. Nurul Haque and others Vs Md. Shamsuddin Mondol and others
Absolute
49
Abdul Khaleque Chowdhury Vs Cox`s bazar pourashava, represented by its Chairman and others
Discharged
50
Shahida Akhter and others Vs Md. Mokaruzzaman and others
Absolute
This Site is Visited :