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

Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Md. Jashim Uddin -Versus- Jesmin Akter
.
2
Ananda Bag Mills Limited and others -Versus- Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Government of Bangladesh, Dhaka and others
.
3
Md. Abdul Hannan Gazi and another Vs. Mustari Begum and others
.
4
Sukur Ali being dead his heirs: 1(a) Md. Baccu Mia and others Vs. Adam Ali and others
Thus, we are of the considered view that although a Court, in a simple suit for partition, may incidentally examine questions of title for the limited purpose of determining the shares of the co-sharers, it cannot adjudicate serious and complicated disputes relating to title in a suit framed merely for partition. Where the plaintiff`s title is under a cloud and partition cannot be effected without first determining such title, the suit must be appropriately framed with a prayer for declaration of title. In the absence of such a prayer, a simple suit for partition is not maintainable.
5
Md. Sofiqul Islam and another Vs. Nilu Barua and others
Accordingly, we are of the view that where third-party purchasers prima facie prove that they acquired title and interest in the suit property prior to the institution of the suit and that the decree was passed in their absence, the appellate court may set aside the ex parte decree, remand the suit for fresh trial, direct that they be added as defendants, and permit them to file written statements and contest the suit on merits.
7
Aleya Enterprise Limited and others-Vs-The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Energy and Mineral Resources Division, Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources and others
Absolute
9
Md. Shahidullah and others. -VERSUS- Md. Monir Hossain and others.
Dismissed
10
Md. Nazrul Islam versus The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by Secretary Ministry of Land, Bangladesh, Secretariat, Shahbag, Dhaka and others
Discharged
11
H.M. Steel and Industries Limited and M/s. R.B. Con-cast and Re-rolling Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. NBR and others
Rule disposed of
12
Md. Abu Jafar Vs. Munshi Khalilur Rahman and others
.
13
Mercantile Insurance Company Limited. -Versus- The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others.
Dismissed
14
Md. Abu Sayeed and another ... Plaintiff-Petitioners -Versus- Alauddin Sarker and others ... Defendant-Opposite Parties
Disposed of
15
Noman Ahmed vs. The State and another
Compromise in section 138 cases, NI Act.
16
If the legal notice is found not to have been served, the trial is vitiated.
17
Md. Enayet Karim -Vs- The State and Anti-corruption Commission, Dhaka
Allowed
18
Parvin Akter, Proprietor of Monnoo Corporation and others-Vs-The Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and others
Absolute
19
Sayem Ahmod ...Convict-Petitioner. -Versus- Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited and another ............... Opposite Parties.
The Rule is discharged
20
Faruque Ahmed and others Vs. Noor Ahmed and others
Appeal is disposed of.
21
Chandra Banu and others Vs. Khurshid Nayem and others
Appeal is dismissed
22
Md. Robiul Islam ...Convict-Petitioner. -Versus- The State and another ...Complainant-Opposite Parties.
The Rule is made absolute
23
Country General Manager, National Bank of Pakistan, Gulshan, Dhaka and -Versus- Md. Anowar Hossain
.
24
Md. Shajahan Ali Khan Vs. Rupali Bank and others
The alleged arbitration is stated to have taken place in 1996, when the Arbitration Act, 1940 was in force. Under the scheme of the Arbitration Act, 1940, as under the Arbitration Act, 2001, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement is the sine qua non for commencement of any arbitration proceeding. It is a settled principle of law that no arbitration can lawfully be initiated, conducted, or enforced in the absence of a valid and binding arbitration agreement between the parties.

In this regard, section 161 of the Contract Act, 1872 is directly relevant, which provides that if, by the default of the bailee, the goods are not returned, delivered or tendered at the proper time, he is responsible to the bailor for any loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods from that time.


Therefore, under Sections 161 and 73 of the Contract Act, compensation for the wrongful retention or non-return of goods or share certificates should be determined by reference to their value on the due-return date, together with lawful interest, rather than by reference to any subsequent increase in market value. If no trading took place on that date, the assessment shall be based on the average market value on the nearest trading date thereto. To hold otherwise would expose the defaulting bailee to liability arising from market fluctuations wholly unconnected with the breach itself.
25
Md. Shafiqul Islam vs. Abdus Sobhan and others
The foregoing views of the various Apex Courts clearly indicate that an admission made by a party in a pleading may be treated as evidence against that party in another suit, not only in relation to a different subject matter but also against a different opponent. However, such an admission cannot be regarded as conclusive proof, and it remains open to the party concerned to establish that it is untrue. An admission, therefore, constitutes substantive evidence, subject to rebuttal by its maker. Where the maker fails to rebut its presumptive value, the opposing party is entitled to rely upon and derive benefit from it, irrespective of whether the admission appears in a plaint or a written statement. However, if it is established that the plaint or written statement containing the admission is a forged document, the admission contained therein cannot be used against the party concerned.

The decision cited above clearly establishes that where a plaintiff is not a party to a decree or instrument relating to a property, a suit for a simple declaration of title to that property, without seeking any relief against such decree or instrument, is maintainable. In other words, where a plaintiff seeks only a declaration of title and is not a party to the deed or decree concerning the property in question, he is not required to seek cancellation of the deed or decree. Consequently, a suit for a simple declaration of title is maintainable without any such consequential relief.
26
Eastern Bank PLC … Petitioner -VersusThe Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram and others . … Respondents
Discharged
27
BanBridge navigation, DMCC UAE Versus M.V. MAJESTIC VERA and others.
Allowed in different form
28
Ibrahim Alam Bhuiyan and others Vs. Govt of Bangladesh and others
Challenge the paripatra regarding clarification of higher grade in the National Pay Scale, 2015
29
Mohammad Ullah Mintu and another-vs-Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Chattogram and others
Absolute
30
Mohammad Ullah Mintu and another-vs-Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Chattogram and others
Absolute
31
Mohammad Ullah Mintu and another-vs-Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Chattogram and others
Absolute
32
Md. Rakib Hossain Pias vs. The State and another
Compromise in Section 138 cases of NI Act.
33
Babul Mia and another -Vs- The State and another
The alleged omission of impleading the company in the proceeding is an irregularity and the same is not fatal and that though the company is not made a party in the proceeding, but the persons concerned, representing the company, who are party in the issuance of the dishonored cheque in reference, having been made party in the proceeding, the proceeding cannot be said to be bad for defect of party inasmuch as the punishment if any on proof, is to be inflicted upon the natural persons involved in the offence committed.
34
Sonali Dredger Limited-vs-National Board of Revenue, Represented by its Chairman, NBR Bhaban, Rajaswa Bhaban, Plot No. F1/A, Agargaon, Sher-E-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka-1207 and others
Absolute
35
Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Chattogram-vs-Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal and another
Discharged
36
BSI Inspectorate Limited-vs-Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal and others
Allowed
37
Petromax Refinery Limited-vs-National Board of Revenue, represented by its Chairman and others
Rule Absolute
38
Md. Amir Hossain-vs-Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal and others
Rule Allowed
39
Hakkani Motors Ltd.-vs-Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal and others
Dismissed
40
Nur Afzal Begum-vs-National Board of Revenue and others
Discharged
41
Golden Son Limited-vs-National Board of Revenue and others
Disposed of
42
Rainbow Ice Represented by it’s proprietor, Zamir Uddin Ahmed Chaudhury Rony-vs-The Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Chattogram and others
Disposed of
43
Abdul Khaleque -vs- The state
Disposed of with modification
44
Unilever Bangladesh Limited-vs-Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others
Rule allowed
45
Shurwid Industries Ltd-vs-Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal and others
Dismissed
46
M/S Zeil Wears Limited-vs-Chairman, National Board of Revenue and others
Discharged
47
Md. Harisur Rahman (Masum) Vs. Fahima Rahman and another
It is a settled principle that Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure confers wide discretionary power upon the Court to appoint a Receiver where it appears just, proper, and convenient and in a partition suit, where a co-sharer entitled to a substantial share is kept out of possession and deprived of benefits, appointment of a Receiver is justified even without proof of waste.
48
Md. Shahidul Islam-vs-Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Finance, Secretariat Building Ramna, Dhaka and others
Rule Disposed of
49
Joarder Nowsher Ali-vs-Commissioner of Customs, Customs House P.S.-Bandar, District- Chattogram and others
Discharged
50
Amirul Islam, Proprietor of Mithu Carpets-vs-The Commissioner of Customs, Customs House (ICD), Kamalapur, Dhaka and others
Rule Disposed of
This Site is Visited :