Judgment : High Court Division
(If you feel problem with font, please, download Bangla font from Downloads Link)
Case Category : 
Case Type
Case Number
Short Description

Case Number Parties Short Description
Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. The State
In the prevailing facts and circumstance of the present case it is patent that in the name of receiving the execution report of warrant of arrest the Magistrate concerned has unnecessarily prolonged the disposal of the prayer for bail of the accused which tantamount to abuse of the process of the court.
Project Head (General Manager) UMC Jute Mills Limited, Narsingdi Vs. Paritosh Saha
M/S Liberty Fashion Wears Limited Vs. Bangladesh Accord Foundation
The State Vs. Registrar General, Supreme Court of Bangladesh and others
On scrutiny of the impugned letter we have no hesitation to hold that the Supreme Court administration in issuing the impugned letter having considered some extraneous and irrelevant facts has abused its discretionary power vested in it.
The opinion in guise of direction expressed in the impugned letter was not the upshot of any judicial determination. Such a mere administrative letter although issued as per the verbal instruction of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, patently impinges upon the rights and lawful authority of the Commission to go on with the inquiry into an allegation of corruption.
Shakwat Hossain Bhuiyan
Rezaul Haque Chowdhury VS Government of Bangladesh and others
Bangladesh Telecommunication Company Limited (BTCL) Vs. Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission and others
Ms. Musarat Islam and others Vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Land and others
Md. Abdul Hye, son of late Abdur Rashid 2/404, Eastern Rokeya Tower 98 Boro Moghbazar, Dhaka Vs Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others
Enemy properties.
বাংলাদেশ অভ্যন্তরীণ নৌ-পরিবহন কর্তৃপক্ষ (বি,আই,ডব্লিউ,টি,এ) বনাম মোতাহার হোসেন বিশ্বাস গং
Md. Aynul Haque alias Abdul Mannan Vs The state and another
Dr. Kamila Afroj Quadir Vs Mr. Md. Anowar Hossain, Secretary (Current Charge), Ministry of Science and Technology, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others
Mr. M. Qumrul Haque Siddique, Advocate, SupremeCourt of Bangladesh Vs The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of thePeople’s Republic of Bangladesh, BangladeshSecretariat, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others
Catherine Masud VS Md. Kashed Miah
Asian Traffic Technologies Ltd. Vs The Government of Bangladesh represented by theSecretary, Road, Transport and Highways Division,Ministry of Road, Transport and Bridges, BangladeshSecretariat, Dhaka-1000 and others
Shantinagar Bohumukhi Samabay samity VS Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat Building, Ramna, Dhaka.
Rezia Bibi alias Most. Rezia Khatun Bibi VS Artha Rin Adalat, Bogra
The State-Vs-Oyshee Rahman
1. Condemned prisoner committed double murder without any apparent motive and was suffering from mental derailment or some sort of mental disorder and also suffering from ovarian cyst and bronchial asthma; 2. Her paternal grandmother and maternal uncle had a history of psychiatric disorders according to exibit-15; 3. She was around 19[nineteen] year old at the relevant time and the occurrence took place just immediately after her attaining the age of majority; 4. She has no such significant history of prior criminal activity [criminal cases] and 5. She had willingly surrendered to the police station soon after two days of the occurrence.
শেখ আবু সেলিম বনাম বাংলাদেশ হাউজ বিল্ডিং ফাইন্যান্স কর্পোরেশন গং
Md. Ataul Goni Sheikh and others Vs.The People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others
Abdul Kader Gazi Vs. The State and another
The learned Judge of the Shishu Adalat, Chandpur committed serious error of law and exceeded its jurisdiction while dealing with the application for bail of an adult accused and that too without having the case record for trial in due course.
Moreover, section 18 of the Shishu Ain, 2013 will come into play after the case record is transmitted to the Shishu Adalat for trial, not before that.
Lokman Vs Ayub Ali and the State
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 118(a) and 138: Cheque is a negotiable instrument (section 13). In the instant case, the prosecution story as narrated in the petition of complaint and the deposition of the complainant as PW1 sharply contradicts each other as to when the complainant paid the money to the accused against which the cheque was issued to repay the same. The petition of complaint is silent about the date of monetary transaction, but states that the cheque was issued by the accused subsequently. In deposition, the complainant stated that the payment of money and issuance of the cheque took place on the same date which creates a doubt as to passing off consideration to the complainant against which the cheque was issued. Therefore, the presumption under section 118(a) of the Act, 1881 as to consideration has been successfully rebutted by the defence. ...(Para 14) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 9: In my view, the trial Court has correctly found that the complainant is not the holder of the cheque in due course. ...(Para 17)
The State-Vs- Qamrul Islam and others
Kamruzzaman Khan Vs.Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law,Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat,Ramna, Dhaka and others
The State Vs. Md. Foysal Bin Nayem @ Dip and Redoyanul Azad @ Rana
Rama Prasanna Bhattacharjee vs. Government of Bangladesh and others
DO letter is not an official communication made by any machinery of the Republic.
Dr. Zubaida Rahman vs. The State and another
Moudud Ahmed vs. The State and another
Raghib Rauf Chowdhury vs. Government of Bangladesh and others
Regarding the appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Association of Ship Recycling in Bangladesh and another Vs. The Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others
Md. Milad Hossain @ Milad Uddin Vs. The State
Therefore, the Registrar General of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh is directed to constitute a Monitoring Cell headed by him or the Registrar of the High Court Division along with the Secretary or his representative not below the rank of Additional Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Law and Justice Division, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. The Monitoring Cell shall monitor this aspect and shall submit report from time to time to the concerned authorities of the responsible persons for taking appropriate action in accordance with section 31Ka (3) of the Act, 2000 with a copy thereof to the Monitoring Committee for the Subordinate Judiciary of the Supreme Court.
The State -Vs- Abul Kashem Kha
The State -Vs- Zakir Hossain and another
The State-Vs- Md. Ramjan Sheikh and another
The State-Vs-Mohammad Ali
The State -Vs- Md. Saiful Islam and one another
The State Vs. Md. Sharif and Md. Mintu Khan
Md. Abdullah Md. Ehtesham Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs , Peoples Republic of bang, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others
Liberty Fashion Wears Limited Vs. Bangladesh Accord Foundation and others
Md. Sirajuddwla VS The State and another
It is not an invariable rule that there cannot be any parallel proceedings on the same facts in Criminal and Civil courts. At the same time, section 344 of the Cr.P.C. vests power upon the Court to postpone or adjourn criminal proceedings ‘for any other reasonable cause’. Thus, proceedings in Criminal Court should be stayed or adjourned where identical issues based on same facts as in criminal cases are involved in suits pending in Civil Court.
Md. Abdul Mazed Vatt @ Md. Yousuf Vs The State
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 Section 540: Section 540 aims to arm a Court with vast discretion to find out the truth in a given case. The entire purpose of this enabling provision is to arrive at the truth or otherwise of the fact under investigation. Thus the section confers a wide discretion to the Court to act as the exigencies of justice require. But the discretion cannot be allowed to be used to fill up the gaps in the evidence of a party who seeks recourse to the use of this provision. Power under the section can be exercised by the Court for judicial consideration only and not to advance the case of prosecution or that of the defence. The power can be exercised to know about something which is not present on the record already due to the failure of either party or due to the reasons beyond the control of any of the parties, or on account of something which has come to light during the trial. The party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court for exercising power in its favour shall satisfy the Court about the existence of lacuna or of the circumstances, which palpably justify such action. Mere quoting the words of section 540 in the application is not enough for exercising such powers. … (Para 17)
Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. The State and another
Md. Faizul Islam and another Vs. Bangladesh and others
Syed Mehedi Ahmed Rumi Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary,Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, PoliceStation Shahbagh, Dhaka and others
Monir Ahmed Vs. Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others
Sarker Md. Tariqul Islam Vs.Mr. Shahiduzzaman, Director-General(Administration), Anti-Corruption Commission,Segunbagicha, Dhaka-1000.
Ms. Parvin Akther Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry
Z. I. Khan Panna Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of
Md. Moniruddin Ahmed Vs. Rajdhani Unnayan Katripakkhya represented by its
This Site is Visited :