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

Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Md. Apel Mahmud ...Convict-Appellant -Versus- The State ...Respondent
The appeal is allowed
2
Soyeb Rahman alias Jimmy ... Appellant -Versus- The State and another ... Respondents
The appeal is dismissed
3
Abdul Kabir -Versus- Abdus Sattar and another
Disposed of
4
Most. Amina Begum -Versus- Md Lutfor Rahman Lota and others
Discharged
5
Titas Gas Transmission and Distribution PLC vs Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna Dhaka and others
The respondent No. 4 was employed as an Inspector (Assistant Accountant) under the petitioner company. During the course of his service, allegation surfaced that he had misappropriated company funds by creating and posting forged gas bill payment receipts in the company`s computerized billing system in respect of several consumers, thereby causing substantial financial loss to the petitioner company.
6
Sarowar Alamgir Versus Election Commission Bangladesh, represented by the Chief Election Commissioner, Nirbachon Bhaban, Agargon, Agargon, Dhaka 1207 and others
13th National Parliament Election scheduled to be held on 12.02.2026 as BNP nominated candidate from the Constituency No. 279, Chattogram-2 .
7
Metrocem Cement Limited Vs. M.V. HAJI KAYES, M-7691 and others.
Application for return of the plaint is allowed.
8
Md. Gias Uddin ... Appellant -Versus- The State and another ... Respondents
The appeal is allowed
9
A.T.M. Ashraful Islam Helal … Petitioner -VersusGovernment of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others … Respondents
Discharged
10
Abdul Kalam -versus- The State and another
Dismissed
11
Mst. Shahanara Bewsa and others -Versus- Upazila Nirbahi Karmokarta, Bagmara, Rajshahi and another
Discharged
12
Md. A.Jabbar being died leaving behind his heirs 1(a) Most. Jabeda Begum and others Defendant-respondents-petitioners Versus Md. A. Gafur and others Plaintiff-appellants-opposite parties
Dismissing the suit
13
Md. Mahmudul Karim … Petitioners -Versus- The Government of Bangladesh and others … Respondents
Discharged
14
Sheikh Shamsur Rahman and another -Versus- Sheikh Zia and others
.
15
Haji Md. Din Islam -Versus- Moynakali and others
.
16
Md. Babul Mondol alias Babul Hossain and others Vs. Md. Mozammel Haq and others
Dismissed
17
Bangladesh General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Bangladesh Biman Corporation and others
Dismissed
18
Md. Abdur Rafiqu Sarkar Vs. Jiban Bima Corporation
Dismissed
19
M.A. Awal Siddique and others Vs. Manager, Uttara Bank, Central Road Branch Rangpur and others
Dismissed
20
Md. Nazrul Islam vs. Md. Sukur Ali Sheikh and another
The Rule is made absolute.
21
Sree Ballov Chandra Das being dead his legal heirs- Uttam Chandra Namo and others -Versus- Abdul Motaleb and others
.
22
Md. Nurul Islam versus The Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka, and others
Discharged
23
Md. Hossen Ali being dead and his heir 1(Ka) Hamida Begum and others ...Petitioners -Versus- Sufia Haque and others …Opposite parties
Absolute
24
Md. Alauddin ... Convict-Appellant-Petitioner -Versus- The State and another ...Complainant-Respondent-Opposite Parties
The Rule is discharged
25
Mossamath Jahanara Begum and others -Versus- Md. Abdul Khalek Howlader and others
Discharged
26
Abdur Rahman -versus- The State and another
Absolute
27
Mr. Abul Kalam Azad and another. -Versus- Neptune Land Development Ltd. and others.
This Court, therefore, holds that for the purpose of maintaining an application under section 233 of the Companies Act, 1994, the qualifying requirement prescribed in section 195(a) must be satisfied by the applicants in their own capacity as registered members of the company. Shares standing in the name of a separate corporate entity cannot be treated as the shareholding of its individual shareholders. An indirect or derivative economic interest arising through shareholding in a corporate shareholder does not confer membership within the meaning of the Companies Act and cannot be reckoned towards the statutory threshold under section 195(a).
28
Ali Haider Ratan and another, -Versus - Khudeja Bhumukhi Farm Ltd., and others.
The materials on record disclose that respondent No. 3 admittedly executed a Power of Attorney before the Bangladesh Consulate in London on 19.10.2010 authorising respondent No. 2 to deal with matters relating to the Company, including her shareholding. Significantly, respondent No. 3 herself has produced before this Court a subsequent deed purporting to revoke the said Power of Attorney. In the ordinary course of law, a revocation necessarily presupposes the existence of a valid authority. Thus, the very reliance placed by respondent No. 3 upon the deed of revocation constitutes an admission that such authority had indeed been created.
29
South Express Limited. -Versus- Madina Enterprise and another
This court is of the view that since the respondents admittedly received notice of the arbitral proceedings, failed to appoint their arbitrator within the stipulated time, participated through solicitors without challenging the tribunal`s jurisdiction before the competent English court, and since no ground under section 46 of the Arbitration Act, 2001 was established, the learned District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by reappraising the merits of the award, holding that the arbitrator committed errors of fact and law, and purporting to set aside the foreign arbitral award. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and the Award is entitled to recognition and enforcement under section 45 of the Arbitration Act, 2001.
30
Sree Ranjit Kumar Mondal and others Vs Mst. Joygun Nesa and others
It is a settled principle of law that, in a probate proceeding, the Court is not competent to determine questions relating to the title or ownership of the property bequeathed under a Will. The sole enquiry in such proceedings is whether the testator duly executed the Will and whether it represents his last Will and testament. It is equally well settled that the grant of probate establishes only the due execution, genuineness and operative character of the Will. It neither invalidates any subsequent transfer nor declares that the beneficiaries under the Will have acquired a better title to the property. However, a subsequent purchaser may oppose the grant of probate only on grounds relating to the genuineness or validity of the Will, such as by alleging that the Will is forged or fabricated, was not duly executed or attested in accordance with law, that the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity, or that its execution was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. But, such a purchaser cannot invite the probate Court to adjudicate questions of title or to declare that his or her sale deed conveys a better title than that of the beneficiaries under the Will, because such issues lie beyond the limited jurisdiction of a probate Court.
31
Jogesh Chandra Roy Memorial Trust, represented by its Chairman, Alhaj Aktaruzzaman Chowdhury vs The Government of The People’s Republic of Bangladesh
Discharged
32
Kumudini Welfare Trust of Bengal (BD) Ltd. vs. Pubali Bank Limited and another
Rule Discharged
33
Sadrul Hasan, son of Aiyub, Proprietor, S2 Imports of House No. 61/B, Flat-5/B, Road-6/A, Dhanmondi R/A, Post Office-Jigatola-1209, Police Station-Dhanmondi, Dhaka and others. … Petitioners -Versus- The Commissioner of Taxes, Income Tax Intelligence and Investigation Unit, National Board of Revenue, Dak Bhaban (11th floor), Sher-E-Bangla Nagar, Agargaon, Dhaka-1207 … Respondent
Absolute
34
Md. Enamul Haque ... Convict-Appellant -Versus- The State and another ...Complainant-Respondents
The appeal is disposed of
35
Discharged
36
Md. Mahtab Uddin and another ...Petitioners -Versus- Executive Engineer, Sales
Discharged
37
Shafiul Islam ........ Defendant-appellant-petitioner -Versus- Sree Provat Chandra Barman and others ....... Plaintiff-respondent-opposite parties
Rule Absolute
38
Md. Saiful Rahman Mondol @ Bablu ... Appellant -Versus- The State and another ... Respondents
The appeal is dismissed
39
Sarder Moin Uddin and others Vs. The People`s Republic of Bangladesh and others
.
40
Md. Iqbal Al-Faruk ... Convict-Appellant-Petitioner -Versus- The State and another ...Complainant-Respondent-Opposite Parties
The Rule is disposed of
41
Nipesh Chandra Mondol -versus- The State and another
Discharged
42
Md. Solaiman -Versus- Md. Elias Mollik and others
The Rule is disposed of.
43
Unique Construction (PVt.) Limited Vs. Project Manager Chandana-Barasia River Excavation Project and another
Allowed
44
Selim Khan Vs. Mst. Aklima Khatun and another
.
45
Md. Abul Kalam Vs. Md. Kawsar Amir Ali
Discharged
46
Md. Masud Alam ... Appellant -Versus- The State and another ... Respondents
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed
47
SVC Jhilmil Residential BD Limited . -Versus- Rajdhani Unnayan Kartipakkha (RAJUK), represented by its Chairman, RAJUK Bhaban, RAJUK Avenue, Dhaka 1000 and others.
Differing, with the greatest respect, from the larger bench decision in Accom, this court is unable to subscribe to the reasoning adopted therein. In the considered view of this court, sections 7, 7A and 10 of the Arbitration Act, 2001 are capable of operating in aid of arbitral proceedings even where the juridical seat of arbitration is outside Bangladesh. Properly construed, these provisions are intended to facilitate and support the arbitral process by conferring limited judicial assistance, rather than by exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings themselves. Consequently, the invocation of section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in place of section 10 of the Arbitration Act, 2001, as adopted in Accom, appears both unnecessary and unwarranted.
48
Md. Aminul Islam -versus- The State and another
Dismissed
49
Md. Al-Amin alias Uzzal Vs Shaheen Parvin and others
Neither the Transfer of Property Act nor the Contract Act contains any specific provision as to whether a person with an intellectual disability (বুদ্ধি প্রতিবন্ধী) is competent to contract or to transfer property. The competency of such a person must, therefore, be determined in the light of the general principles embodied in Sections 11 and 12 of the Contract Act, namely, whether, at the time of entering into the transaction, the person was capable of understanding its nature and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his or her interests.
50
Mohammad Akteruzzaman versus The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others
Discharged
This Site is Visited :