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

Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Munshi Mohiuddin Ahmed- Vs- Bangladesh and others
Disposed of
2
Nabila Zaman Kotha- VS- The State and another
Discharged
3
Md. Tanvir Ahmed-Vs-The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Bridges and others
Discharged
4
Tuhin Mahmud-Vs-Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Education and others
Disposed of
5
Dharmapur Girls’ High School attached Non-Government Primary School, of Police Station-Gobindaganj, District- Gaibandha, represented by the Headmistress Mosa. Rozina Begum vs.Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Education and others
Disposed of
7
Rakhi Mondal-Vs-Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Education, Bangladesh Secretariat, and others
Absolute
8
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
9
Mejor Md. Waliul Islam (Retd) … Petitioner -VersusJudge, Artha Rin Adalat, Barisal and Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Barisal and others. … Respondents
Discharged
10
Mohammed Shah Alam-Vs-Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and others
Discharged
11
The State ...petitioner -Versus- Md. Zahidul Islam ...condemned-convict (Absconding)
In the result, the death reference is rejected. The death sentence is commuted to the sentence of imprisonment for life. The Tribunal is directed to recall the earlier conviction Warrant of Arrest and issue a fresh Warrant of Arrest mentioning the modified sentence.
12
The State ...petitioner -Versus- Sujan Bepari and another ...condemned-convicts (Absconding)
In the result, the death reference is rejected. The death sentence is commuted to sentence of imprisonment for life. The Tribunal is directed to recall the earlier Warrants of Arrest and issue fresh Warrants against the convicts for commutated sentence.
13
The State ...petitioner -Versus- Nur Mohammed ...condemned-prisoner
Let a copy of this judgment with a photostat copy of the confession exhibit-10 he recorded be sent to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, for taking appropriate steps against him.
14
The State ...petitioner -Versus- Chunnu Mural and others ...condemned-prisoners
In the result, the death reference is rejected. The appeals of condemned prisoners Selim Chowkider is allowed and the Rule issued in Miscellaneous Case so far it relates to Swapna Begum is made absolute. They are acquitted of the charges brought against them. Let condemned prisoners Selim Chowkider and Swapna Begum be set at liberty if not wanted in connection with any other case. The Jail Appeal Nos. 129 of 2019, 130 of 2019, 131 of 2019 and 132 of 2019 are disposed of. The death sentence awarded upon condemned prisoners Chunnu Mural and Nuru Mural is commuted to imprisonment for lifer. Let condemned prisoners Chunnu Mural and Nuru Mural be shifted to general cell from the condemned cell immediately.
15
The State .....petitioner -Versus- Md. Liton and 4 others .....condemned-prisoners
In the result, the reference is accepted on modification, the appeals filed are hereby dismissed and the Jail Appeals are disposed of.
16
The State .....petitioner -Versus- Md. Liton and 4 others .....condemned-prisoners
In the result, the reference is rejected. Appeals are allowed in modified form. The death sentences awarded upon the condemned petitioners under section 9(3) of the Ain are set aside. Each of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life under section 9(1) of the Ain. Let the condemned prisoners be removed from the condemned cell and shifted to the general cell, if not required in connection with any other sentence. The jail appeals are disposed of.
17
Md. Nurul Haque and others Vs Md. Shamsuddin Mondol and others
Absolute
18
Kamal Pradhan ... Convict-Petitioner -Versus- Md. Shohel Rana Pradhan and another ...Complainant-Opposite Parties
The Rule is discharged
19
Golam Muhiuddin Selim and another ... Appellants -Versus- Abu Saeem Md. Tofazzal Hossain and another ... Respondents
The appeal is dismissed
20
Md. Rabiul Islam Sumon ... Convict-Appellant-Petitioner -Versus- The State and another ...Complainant-Respondent-Opposite Parties
The Rule is discharged
21
The State ...petitioner -Versus- Md. Nuruzzaman ...condemned-prisoner
In the result, we hold that the reference is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. The appeals filed by the condemned prisoner and other two convicts are allowed and the Jail Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Let the condemned prisoner be set at liberty if not wanted in connection with any other case. The other convict-appellants and their sureties are discharged from respective bail bonds.
22
Abdul Khaleque Chowdhury Vs Chairman, Cox`s bazar Pourashava and others
Discharged
23
Mrs. Rabia Basri - VS- Mohammad Habibur Rahaman and others
Absolute
24
Md. Emam Uddin @ Eman Ali -Versus- The Chairman, Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh, Headquarters, Kurmitola, Dhaka and another
.
25
Kalipada Das Vs. Ananda Chandra Das (Minor) and others
.
26
Md. Bulu Mia -Versus- Saiya Sultana Binu and others
.
27
Legend World Tank PTE, -Versus- Multinational Shipping Co. Ltd., 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.
28
The Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Satkhira and others -Versus- Most. Masura Khatun and others
Absolute
29
Md. Rezaul Karim Sarder and others … Plaintiff-Petitioners Versus Mst. Laily Munnnujan Nesabanu and others ...Defendant-Opposite parties
Absolute
30
Sonali Jute Mills Ltd. represented by its Manager, Administrative, Sonali Jute Mills Limited, Thana Khan Jahan Ali, District Khulna -Versus- Executive Engineer, Sales and Distribution Division-2, Power Development Board, B.L. College Road, Doulatpur, District Khulna and others
Discharged
31
Md. Shahidul Islam and others -Versus- Md Saidul Islam and others
Absolute
32
Md. Fajlul Haque and others Vs. 1(a) Saiara Begum and others
We find no provision in the Code prescribing a separate stage or proceeding described as an “admission hearing” of an ordinary suit after the issues have been framed. A Court may, of course, hear the parties on any question of law or procedure arising in the suit; but merely fixing a suit for an “admission hearing” does not, by itself, create a jurisdictional basis for rejection of the plaint under section 151 of the Code. Where the suit has already proceeded beyond the stage of framing of issues and is pending for trial, any order bringing the suit to an end by rejecting the plaint must be traceable to a specific provision of the Code or other law conferring such jurisdiction. The inherent power under section 151 cannot be invoked to create a procedure or jurisdiction which is not otherwise provided by law.
33
Ecotech Consultants Limited vs The Government of Bangladesh
Discharged
34
Md. Sajjad Hossain Sarder, being dead, leaving behind the following heirs Aysha Begum and others -Versus- Mrs. Rokaya Bibi and others
Absolute
35
Discharged
36
Dismissed
37
Chita Sreerampur Matshyajibi Samabaya Samity Ltd ... Plaintiff-Appellant -Versus- Sajjadur Rahman (Shajid) and others ... Plaintiff-Respondents
Dismissed
38
Abdur Rahman and another ... Defendant-Appellants -Versus- Mohammad Mashuk and another ... Plaintiff-Respondents
Disposed of
39
Sirajul Alam Chowdhury ... Plaintiff-Appellant -Versus- Ahmed Nur Chowdhury and another ... Defendant-Respondents
Disposed of
40
Kad Banu ... Appellant -Versus- Amir Hossain and others ... Respondents
Dismissed
41
Sheikh Md. Nurullah ... Defendant-Petitioner Versus Ummeh Kulsum Tanzila ... Plaintiff-Opposite party
Discharged
42
Moniruzzaman Bari and others … Plaintiff-Petitioners Versus Kamruzzaman Miah and others ... Defendant-Opposite parties
Discharged
43
Dr. Md. Sajahan (Saju) being dead his legal heirs 1(a) Mst. Nurjahan and others ... Plaintiff-Petitioners -Versus- Government of Bangladesh and another ... Defendant-Opposite Parties
Discharged
44
Discharged
45
Md. Ashraful Alam Jahid Vs. Mst. Mim Akter
.
46
Hazi Abdul Malek Islamia College, Khulna Vs. Md. Nurul Islam and others
These principles rest upon judicial discipline, certainty and consistency in the administration of justice and are equally relevant to the interpretation of Article 111 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, which embodies the doctrine of binding precedent. In the absence of any contrary pronouncement of the Appellate Division, the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court of India provide persuasive guidance on the question of Bench strength. Thus, where two decisions of the Appellate Division are in conflict, the decision rendered by the Bench of greater numerical strength must prevail, and a smaller Bench cannot overrule or depart from the decision of a larger Bench.

It appears that Rezaul Karim and others v. Shamsuzzoha and others, 49 DLR (AD) 68, was decided by a five-Judge Bench, whereas Chinmoy Chowdhury and another v. Mridul Chowdhury and others, 55 DLR (AD) 115, was decided by a three-Judge Bench. Accordingly, notwithstanding that the latter decision expressed a divergent view, the decision in 49 DLR (AD) 68, having been rendered by the larger Bench, is binding upon the High Court Division.


Therefore, in a suit for partition, the Court may examine the plaintiff’s title to the suit property in greater detail than would ordinarily be necessary in a suit for permanent injunction. However, where the pleadings disclose a serious, complicated or fundamental dispute as to the plaintiff’s title, and the relief of partition cannot effectively be granted without first adjudicating upon such title, a mere suit for partition is not maintainable. In such circumstances, the plaintiff must seek an appropriate declaration of title together with the relief of partition in a properly constituted suit.
47
Krishnapada Biswas and others ... Plaintiff-Petitioners -Versus- Md. Siddique Sheikh and others ... Defendant-Opposite Parties
Disposed of
48
Rakhi Mondal vsGovernment of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Education, Bangladesh Secretariat, and another
Absolute
49
Md. Abu Tayebur Rahman ... Convict-Petitioner. -Versus- Md. Ataur Rahman and another ... Complainant-Opposite Parties.
The Rule is disposed of
50
United Enterprises and Company Limited (UECL). -VERSUS- Registrar of Joint Stock Companies
Dismissed.
This Site is Visited :