Supreme Court Online Bulletin (SCOB)
Full List | Back
High Court Division
Judgment Published in SCOB
Search by Case Number :
Search by Key Word(s) :
Serial No. Issue Year Name of the Parties/Case No and Citation Key Word(s) Short Ratio
1. 2 2015 WRIT PETITIONS NO. 9366 of 2011, 9341 of 2011, 8220 of 2011, 9367 of 2011, 9368 of 2011, 9369 of 2011, 9370 of 2011, 2600 of 2012, 5076 of 2012, 5077 of 2012, 5078 of 2012 & 5818 of 2012.

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 1
Negotiable instrument
Holder in due course
Consideration
Dishonored Cheque
Lawful custody
Fraud
Until the contrary is proved, it will be presumed that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated, or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Section 118(g), however, provides that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course; provided that where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.
2. 2 2015 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.433 OF 2003

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 18
Alter or amend charge
Guilty under lower section
The Court under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is competent to alter or amend the charge at any stage of the proceeding before pronouncement of judgment. Since section 302 of the Penal Code is not applicable even after framing a charge under section 302 of the Penal Code, there is no legal bar to find the accused guilty under lower section of 304 Part II of the Penal Code on proper examination of the facts, circumstances and evidence of the case.
3. 2 2015 Criminal Misc. Case No. 19511 Of 2012

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 21
Quashing criminal proceeding
Delay in lodging FIR
Inherent jurisdiction
Section 561A
There is no dispute that the F.I.R. has been lodged with a delay of about four years. But, according to the F.I.R. as well as the Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the informant is a Korean woman and she received the copies of forged documents long after from the investigating officer of a previous case. Moreover, delay by itself is no ground for quashing the criminal proceeding.
4. 2 2015 WRIT PETITION NO. 9147 of 2008

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 27
Banking Companies Act 1991
Credit Information Bureau
Defaulter borrower
Financial institution
Elementary principle of Company law
The process of enlistment of any defaulter name in the CIB list is a continuing process within the meaning of section 5 GaGa read with section 27 KaKa of Banking Companies Act 1991 and also read with Article 42 of Bangladesh Bank Order 1972. If all these provisions are read together one and only inference that could be made is that if any person or a company is indebted to in any manner with any financial institution and the debt remains unpaid, it is the duty of the respondent Bangladesh Bank in its turn to enlist the name of the incumbent in the CIB list nothing more nothing less.
5. 2 2015 Writ Petition No. 735 of 2007

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 32
Administrative actions
Scale of fairness
Arbitrarily
Duty of a lawyer
Administrative actions by Government and statutory bodies should be judged on the scale of fairness. In other words, no authority can act arbitrarily and whimsically in discharging its duties, thereby affecting the rights and privilege of the property of an individual.
6. 2 2015 Writ Petition No. 9150 of 2007

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 36
Anti-Corruption
Commission Act, 2004: Section 420 of the Penal Code
Malice
Bad faith
Section 2(Umo) of the Act contemplates that ceѢa means the offences mentioned in the schedule of the Act. It is an indisputable fact that the alleged offences were not scheduled offences of the Act at the relevant point of time. So the question of enquiry into the alleged offences by the respondent no. 3 is out of the question. What we are driving at boils down to this: the respondent no. 3 was not empowered to enquire into the alleged offences, but none the less, he enquired thereinto. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the enquiry report submitted by the respondent no. 3 was treated as an ejahar by the concerned Police Station which gave rise to the instant case. In this regard, Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan has candidly conceded that the treatment of the enquiry report as an ejahar is not sustainable in law. This being the panorama, we feel constrained to hold that the very initiation of the case is de hors the law.
7. 2 2015 CIVIL REVISION NO. 4636 OF 2004

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 41
Pre-emption
Co-sharer by purchase
Statutory period
Tenants
When an application has been made under sub-section (1) any of the remaining co-sharer tenants including the transferee, if one of them, and the tenants holding lands contiguous to the land transferred may within the period referred to in sub-section (1) or within two months of the date of service of notice of the application under clause (b) of sub-section (3) which ever be earlier apply to joint in the said application; any co-sharer tenant or tenant holding land contiguous to the land transferred, who has not applied either sub-section (1) or under this sub-section, shall not have any further right to get pre-emption under this section.
8. 2 2015 CIVIL REVISION NO. 3384 OF 2001

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 44
Identifiable plot
Advocate Commissioners report
Injunction
Requirement of law is that the property should be identified by boundaries or numbers. When the plots are identified by numbers, boundaries are not necessary. The identifiable plot numbers having been given with total quantum of land against each plot in the schedule of plaint, there is no difficulty in identifying land of the plots.
9. 2 2015 Civil Revision No. 1622 of 2010

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 47
Right in special law
Barring Clause
Settlement
The general remedy of the suit under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure will be impliedly barred where a right is created by a special law and special forum is provided in it.
10. 2 2015 WRIT PETITION NO. 9490 OF 2013

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 54
Lawyers Certificate
Binding Force of Judgment
Truth and Accountability Commission (TAC)
A judgment or order becomes effective (subject to correction of error or review by the same Court, as the case may be) the moment it is pronounced in the open Court. A certificate to that effect issued by a learned lawyer is sufficient proof to the parties or persons concerned, according to the law declared in 44 D.L.R. (AD) 219. Besides, as per provisions of article 111 of the Constitution of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, the judgment passed by the Appellate Division is binding on the High Court Division too, alongwith the subordinate Courts. Hence, if the Appellate Division pronounces any judgment then it becomes binding on the High Court Division (in similar cases), whether the same is signed or not. If the High Court Division considers it just and proper to wait till the judgment is pronounced by the Appellate Division to be signed, then it (HCD) can at best keep the matter awaiting judgment. But, it should not pronounce any judgment contrary to the judgment pronounced, in the open Court, by the Appellate Division, on the matter having relevance to the case before this Division. However, to cover this interim period, this Division may pass such interim order as the ends of justice may demand.
11. 2 2015 ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 17 of 2015

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 58
Refund of the Court fees
Benefit from filing of the suit
The parties are entitled to refund of the Court fees if it is found that the apparatus of the Court and its process have not been used for the cause for which the parties have taken recourse to the proceedings of the Court. This underlining principle of the Court Fees Act as well as the provisions under sub-Section (11) of Section 89A of the Code have also been recognized and affirmed in the cases as referred to by Mr. Hannan, in particular the case of Bhola v. Sardar Muhammad, PLD 1976 Lahore 1268.
12. 2 2015 Writ Petition No. 11346 of 2014

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 62
Article 102 of the Constitution
Aggrieved person
Clean hands
The above conduct of the petitioner, as to non-disclosure of pendency of the representation before the Board, clearly suggests that he attempted to suppress the said fact before this Court and obtained this Rule by misleading the Court for which he deserves to be penalised. An aggrieved person, who wishes to come to this Court for seeking any remedy, must come with clean hands without attempting to hide any fact inasmuch as this Court in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 102 of the Constitution carries out its duty as an extra ordinary forum, unlike the other ordinary Courts. This Court, in essence, is an equity Court, for, the State has provided this provision in the Constitution for adjudication upon the bonafide claims of the citizens who will not have any forum, including civil Court, tribunal or a quasi-judicial body, for vindication of their rights. If a citizen seeks to abuse the said provision, this Court not only turns down his petition, but also penalises him.
13. 2 2015 Writ petition No. 12211 of 2012

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 66
Legitimate Expectation
Public interest
Change in the policy
On the basis of several decisions passed by our Apex Court, now it has been established that generally the legitimate expectation may arise-
I. if there is an express promise given by a public authority; or
II. because of the existence of a regular practice which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue;
III. Such an expectation must be reasonable.
However, if there is a change in the policy or in the public interest the position is altered by a rule or legislation, no question of legitimate expectation would arise.
14. 2 2015 WRIT PETITION NO. 8152 OF 2009

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 70
Article 102 of the Constitution
Discretionary Power
Now it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 102 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent of the acquiescent and lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner in filing a Writ Petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustice.
15. 2 2015 WRIT PETITION N0. 8068 of 2005

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 73
Retrospective operation
Legislative intent
Customs Act
Rate of duty
Tariff value
Imported goods
The question whether a statute operate retrospectively, or prospectively only, in one of legislative intent. In determining such intent, courts observe a strict rule of construction against a retrospective operation, and indulge in the presumption that the legislature intended statutes, or amendments thereof, enacted by it, to operate prospectively only and not retroactively. However, a contrary determination will be made where the intention of the legislature to make the statute retroactive is stated in express terms, or is clearly, explicitly, positively, unequivocally, unmistakably, and unambiguously shown by necessary implication or terms which permit no other meaning to be annexed to them, and which preclude all question in regard thereto, and leave no reasonable doubt thereof.
16. 2 2015 First Appeal No. 77 of 2006

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 77
Insurance claim
Contract
Awarding compensation
Regarding the claim (No.viii) we find that the accident has taken place during the contract period and thereafter he took treatment and failed to succeed as a result he suffered a lot and finally he lost one of his legs, which was also held within the time frame of contract and MoU and claims was made within stipulated time mentioned in MoU. So there is nothing wrong to get the benefit of the insurance claim.
17. 2 2015 WRIT PETITION NO. 3606 of 2010
With
WRIT PETITION NO.1909, 12357, 12358, 7980, 7982, 9355, 7979, 5175, 7981, 3184 and 7766 of 2013; 3210 of 2009; 991 of 2012; 6056, 227, 2672, 1192, 335, 7768, 1956 and 5065 of 2014

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 84
VAT Act
Third party authority
Purported exercise of discretion
Demand of documents
No provision of the said Act of 1991 empowers the VAT authority to direct the petitioner as a VAT registered person to deliver any documents or records directly to any third party authority, i.e. Local and Revenue Audit Directorate. Neither a notice can be issued either directing and deposit of revenue or under section 55(1) of VAT Act on that Count.
18. 2 2015 WRIT PETITION NO. 2412 OF 2007

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 95
Power to make appointment Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947
Section 3
Section 16 of the General Clauses Act
According to Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, where, by any Act of Parliament or Regulation, a power to make any appointment is conferred, then, unless a different intention appears, the authority having for the time being power to make the appointment shall also have power to suspend or dismiss any person appointed whether by itself or any other authority in exercise of that power. As the suspension of licence is not there in Section 3 of the Act of 1947, in our opinion, the provisions of Section 16 of the General Clauses Act can definitely be invoked in order to give a complete and harmonious interpretation of Section 3 of the Act of 1947. What we are driving at boils down to this: the authority making any appointment has the power to suspend the licence of any person appointed.
19. 2 2015 WRIT PETITION NO. 3716 OF 2014

Citation:
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 99
Enquiry committee
Show cause notice
We have also consulted the rules and, in our considered opinion, a show cause notice, as required under clause (Ka) of Rule- 5.4 giving 7 days time to explain the allegations brought, if any, and further asking, in the same notice, the petitioners as to whether they were willing to appear before the enquiry committee were mandatory on the part of the respondents and such notices ought to have been issued upon the petitioners. We also find that, as per clause (Kha) of Rule 5.4, it is also mandatory that appointing authority should form a 3(three) members enquiry committee and the enquiry committed shall dispose of the disciplinary proceedings, if initiated, within 60 days. But, we find nothing on record to show that any notice was issued upon the petitioners or any enquiry committee was formed required by clause (Kha) or clause (Kha) of Rule 5.4 of the said rules and the impugned memo was not issued following the procedure laid down in clauses (Ka) and (Kha) of Rule 5.4.
This Site is Visited :