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
Miah Mohammad Abdul Nayem Vs. The Review Panel represented by its Chairman, Mr. Md.
Dr. Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir Vs.The Government of Bangladesh represented by the
S. M. Masud Hossain Dolon and others Vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others
Durnity Daman Commission VS Monjur Morshed Khan and others
It is our considered opinion that the Court cannot play into the hands of the investigating officer who designedly made a perfunctory investigation and misled the Commission and Court should act objectively in a correct perspective.
Durnity Daman Commission Vs. Hussain Mohammad Ershad and others
On perusal of the impugned order and materials before us, we have no hesitation to observe that the concerned public prosecutor as well the Commission have failed to show their due diligence in conducting the case and their negligence is not excusable. But, if we consider the allegations made against the accused persons that they incurred loss of taka more than 64 crore of State money for their personal gain and for the gain of others abusing their high position, then we have no other option but to hold that the prosecution should be given a chance to prove its case for the greater interest of the country. Because, the victim of financial crime is the every citizen of the country.
Robin Chowdhury @ Misba Uddin Vs. Anti-Corruption Commission and others
In other words, international law must be specially adopted or incorporated within the municipal legal system by way of implementing act of the legislature. Since the principle of ‘International Double Jeopardy’ has not been incorporated in the Ain of 2012 and as such there is no scope to enforce the said principle within our domestic legal system.
The State Vs. Executive Magistrate Mohammad Rafiqul Islam also the Upazilla Nirbahi Officer of Sakhipur, Tangail and another
Md. Abul Kalam and others VS Md. Entaj Ali Sheikh and others
Because of any fancy evasive objection or statement of the preemptee, it is not at all obligatory for the Trial Court to hold any inquiry to assess the actual consideration money of the case land under section 96(3)(b) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act. On the plea of a minor mistake or error of calculation caused due to latches of any particular lawyer, no Court shall deprive a party to the pre-emption case from exercising his statutory right, to which he is otherwise entitled to.
Badiul Alam Majumdar and others Vs. Information Commission, Bangladesh
Hazi Safiuddin Ahmed Vs. The Administrator of Waqfs Bangladesh and others
Sections 32(4), 34, 43, 44 , 51 of the Waqfs Ordinance, 1962 Power of the Administrator in respect of appointment of Mutawalli : The Waqfs Ordinance does not empower the Administrator of Waqfs to appoint mutawalli of a waqf estate in a casual manner or as a routine work. Save under exceptional situations/circumstances detailed in the various provisions of the Waqfs Ordinance as discussed above the Administrator has no authority or jurisdiction to appoint mutawalli of any waqf estate. In a normal situation i.e where the terms of the waqf deed in respect of appointment of mutawalli is clear and unambiguous and not inconsistent with Mahomedan Law or there is no dispute to be settled by the Court the prospective mutawalli would assume the office of mutawalli in terms of waqf deed and in that case the provisions of section 51 would follow.
Criminal Appeal 7225/2013 Durnity Daman Commission Vs. Md. Tarique Rahman (absconding) and the State with Criminal Appeal No.7469 of 2013 Md. Gias Uddin Al- Mamun Vs. The State and another
Afangir @ Kalu Vs. The State
Explosive Substance Act, 1908 Section 4/6: Mere knowledge of an accused or his equivocal disclosure about existence of bomb-making powders during his police custody shall not expose him to any criminal liability of possessing or controlling that illegal substance. ... (Para 24)
The State Vs. Nurul Islam Sarkar and Others.
Md Majharul HoqueMonsur Vs Mir Kashim Chowdhury
Section 138 of the N.I. Act:The proceedings initiated on thepetition of complaint under section 138 of the N.I. Act cannot be hindered byor shackled with any proceeding initiated on an arbitration clause. Section 265C of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1898 andSection 138 of the N.I. Act:Whether the cheque in question wasdrawn against any liability or not is a pure question of fact and withoutawarding ample opportunity to sift those facts, anyone cannot be allowed toobstruct the course of justice depriving the complainant-opposite party, whomay prove his claims and allegations on trial.
Md. Golam Faruque Vs Md. SalimReza
All particulars relating to the date of receipt or the manner ofservice of the legal notice including other relevant parenthetical informationare bundle of facts and any discourse on those facts or their unerring decisionrequires in-depth scrutiny and threshing of the evidence to be produced intrial. So, mere non-disclosure of those facts in the petition of complaintcannot be a valid cause to make the entire proceedings liable to be quashed,which in true sense will deprive the complainant to prove his case on evidence.
Advocate Asaduzzaman Siddiqui and others Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Division, Bangladesh Secretariat
Lt. Sheikh Jamal Dhanmondi Club Ltd. Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Youth and Sports, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh and others
Samia Rahman and others Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others
Birampur Sonali Matshajibi Samabay Samity Ltd. Vs Government of Bangladesh and others
Demi-official letter: Its meaning, legal force etc.
Demi-official letter or official correspondence / communication, information, interchange has got no legal force nor have any binding effect or in other words, the recipient of a D.O letter is not legally bound to act in accordance with such letter. Where determination of rights, privilege etc. of person(s) are enshrined in law itself, the same cannot be curtailed or taken away by a mere request/recommendation of the member of Parliament or any other dignitary in the form of D.O letters or any other manner whatsoever.

Amendment of Quotation for Lease: Its Legal Effect
In the case of Niamatpur Matsajibi Samabya Samity vs. Government of Bangladesh and others ( Writ Petition No. 10603 of 2013) the point was raised and we ( to which both of us were parties, judgment delivered on 1.6.2014) observed that “viewed in this light, it is clear that in the bidding process initiated for lease of fisheries there is no scope for amendment / modification, alteration of or varying from the original bid quoted with the initial application or to file fresh application or submit fresh project subsequent to filing of the initial ones”. We see no reason to take departure from the view already taken by us.

Member of Parliament: Are oath bound not to allow their personal interest.
Members of parliament, according to the ‘Clause 5’ of THIRD SCHEDULE of the Constitution, are oath bound not to allow their personal interest to influence the discharge of their duties as members of Parliament. They are not above the law and must act in accordance with law. They are peoples’ representatives, which does not mean that by issuing D.O letters they can favour or dis-favour any particular people or group of people as and when they desire in disregard of law and the interest of the people in general.
Abdul Khaleque Vs. The Government of Bangladesh represented by Deputy Commissioner, Narayangonj
If no date mentioned in the contract for sale, 6 months shall be deemed to be the period for performance of the contract as per Section 54A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and 1 year limitation as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908 will start after that period. Second part of third column can not override the first part of third column of Article 113.
Mst. Anjuara Khanam @ Anju Vs. The State and another
(Full Bench Decision): “Power of Tribunal u/s 27, Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain"
Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. The State and another
Sadharan Bima Corporation, Sadharan Bima Bhaban, 33, Dilkusha Commercial Area, Dhaka and another. Vs. Messrs Ahad Jute Mills Ltd. and others.
(Full Bench Decision): “We have considered the first part of clause (b) of Article 86 of the Limitation Act, which under the heading “Description of Suit” and described the policy of insurance, when the sum insured is payable after proof of the loss has been given to or received by the insurers. Here words “Payable” and “has been given to” are very significant, which means that the sum insured is payable when the proof of loss has been informed to the insurers. In other words it means that the amount of insurance is payable when the loss occurred has been communicated to the insurer with proof or the insurer got the information of the occurrence. All these are thus related to intimation to the insurer about the occurrence, and after such communication, the sum insured became payable. The word “loss” has been mentioned in the first and third part of Article 86(b) of the Limitation Act and the word “loss” referred to as an information of the loss to the insurer resulting from an occurrence and thus making the policy of insurance payable. The word “payable” as mentioned in the first part of the Article, relates to cause of action of the suit i.e. the plaintiff after intimation of proof of loss to the insurer the sum insured has become payable and the plaintiff thus entitle to get the same.”

“From a plain reading of the third part of Article 86(b) of the Limitation Act, which is under the heading “ Time from which period begins to run” provides that is shall run from the date of the occurrence causing the loss accordingly there is no doubt that the suit have to filed within three years from the date of occurrence causing the loss.”
The State Vs. Mufti A. Hannan Munshi alias Abul Kalam and others
Md. Mosaraf Hossain Vs. Delowara Begum and others
It is established that in suit for partition the value of the whole property which determines the jurisdiction of the court and not the value of the plaintiff’s share only
Mohammad Ali Akond vs. Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka and others
We have gone through section 51 of the Jahangirnagar University Act, 1973 and found that the Writ Petitioner had equally efficacious and adequate remedy by way of appeal to the Chancellor of the University, where the Syndicate will necessarily be a party. According to section 51 of the Act of 1973, on receipt of appeal the Chancellor will send a copy thereof to the Syndicate seeking its opinion and if he is satisfied with the opinion given by the Syndicate, then may reject the appeal straightaway, in which case the aggrieved party may come with an application under article 102 of the Constitution. There is another option for the Chancellor in which case he will appoint an Inquiry Commission consisting of such persons having no involvement with affairs of the University and on the basis of the report of the Inquiry Commission and the recommendations of the Syndicate, the Chancellor shall decide the appeal. In view of the said provisions of appeal and the decision given by their Lordships in the Appellate Division, as referred to above, we are inclined to hold that at this stage both the Writ Petitions, as filed, under article 102 of the Constitution are not maintainable.
Civil Rule 996(V)(R)/2015 (Arising out of Civil Rule No. 739(FM) of 2015) Mohammad Alauddin Sikder and others vs. Md. Mujibur Rahman and others
For violating the order of injunction passed by the Hon`ble High Court Division, punishment given after holding judicial enquiry
Osman Gazi Chowdhury VS Artha Rin Adalat, 4th Court, Dhaka and another
Section 41 of the Artharin Ain, 2003:
No writ is maintainable against a decree or post-decree order passed by Artharin Adalats:
It is the clear intention of the Legislature that a party to an Artharin Suit if aggrieved by a decree, must prefer an appeal. Since the Ain, 2003 is a special law with an overriding provision over other laws and has prescribed a special procedure, there is no scope to bypass the appellate forum, if the forum under Section 19(2) of the Ain, 2003 against an exparte decree is already not availed of by the party.
About 10 (ten) years ago, our Apex Court in the case of BADC -Vs-Artharin Adalat 59 DLR(6) urged the learned Advocates of this Court to be susceptive in filing a writ petition against any decree of the Artharin Adalat. But unfortunately the learned members of the Bar are coming up with the said writ petitions indiscriminately and thereby causing wastage of valuable time of this Court which is overwhelmingly overburdened with huge backlog of cases.
Writ is maintainable against a pre-decree order passed by Artharin Adalat. The only exception is that before passing the decree, if a party to an Artharin Suit feels aggrieved by an order, writ jurisdiction may be invoked as has been held in the case Sonali Bank Ltd Vs Asha Tex International 20 BLC 185.
Nur Mohammad Vs. Asen Ali and others
Civil Court can restrain the proceedings of Revenue authority in concern with mutation proceeding by granting temporary injunction
Jogmaya Saha Roy Vs. Sree Shekhar Chandra Chakraborty and others
One who enters into a religious order severs his connection with the members of his natural family. He is accordingly excluded from inheritance. Entrance to a religious order is tantamount to civil death so as to cause a complete severance of his connection with his relations, as well as with his property. Neither he nor his natural relatives can succeed to each other’s properties
Musa Kalimullah vs. Secretary, Water Resources, Ministry of Water Development and others
Ratio: The post of Stenographer is a promotion post and the decision of promotion is to be made on the basis of merit through open competition in which serving Steno-Typists and outsiders may take part. So, on being promoted as Stenographer he has become entitled again to get the benefits of a new-slot of time-scales subject to fulfilling essential conditions like- satisfactory service of 8, 12 or 15 years.
Md. Imam Hasan and others vs. Secretary, Ministry of Education and others
Ratio: 1. In the scale of a lower post like L.D.A no employee can claim to count his service in a higher post like U.D.A. Under any circumstance an employee shall not be allowed to discharge the responsibility of any higher posts immediately after his appointment in a post lower than that. Ratio: 2. Government Order or policy decision, no employee serving on daily basis shall be entitled to get that period added or counted with his later service in the regular establishment.
Meda Natun Hati Masthyajibi Samabay Samity Limited Vs Government of Bangladesh and others
সরকারি জলমহাল ব্যবস্থাপনা নীতি ২০০৯ It appears that the Rules, 2009 is silent about what criteria should be followed in ascertaining such distance where more than one samity apply for getting lease. But the preamble of ‘The Rules, 2009’ made it clear that the same has been promulgated with a view to giving preference to the real fishermen in granting lease which along with other provisions of the Rules, 2009 suggest that the riparian samity of fishermen of which most of the members live closer to the Fishery would get priority in getting lease. A fishermen community may live far off from the Fishery but for some other reasons may set up its office at a place close to the Fishery. If nearness of the office is taken to be the standard of measuring comparative distance of the contending societies unfair competition in setting up offices nearest to the fisheries is bound to follow to the detriment of the purpose of the law. This is a proposition which cannot be accepted in any view of the matter.(para 15)
Mohammad Hasan Vs. The State
Md. Motiar Rahman vs The State and another
An accused is not entitled to jimma of seized property except where claim of right to possession of the same is prima facie lawful.
Oli Ahmed Chowdhury being dead his legal heirs: 1(a). Jarina Begum and others Vs. Md. Osman Gani and others
Starting point of Limitation for filing a pre-emption case is the date, when the impugned sale deed has been registered under section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908
Sarwar Alam Chowdhury being dead his legal heirs: 1(ka) Fazilatun Nessa Mimi and others vs Govt. of Bangladesh and others
Abandoned property: - For release of abandoned property, claimant have to prove that the owner or his legal heirs occupying supervising and managing the disputed property on 28.02.1972, while President`s Order No. 16 of 1972 came into force.
United International University vs The Commissioner of Taxes with Manarat Dhaka International College vs The Commissioner of Taxes
(Full Bench Decision): Private universities/colleges imparting education are not required to produce any exemption certificate or letter issued by NBR to get tax exemption in view of the provisions under SRO No. 454-L/80(a) dated 31.12.80 as amended by SRO No. 178-Income Tax/2002 dated 03.07.2002 issued by the NBR.
The Commissioner of Taxes vs Haji Mohammad Ali Meah Waqf Estate
(Full Bench Decision): The part of income of a private religious trust (Waqf), which is not applied or set a part for benefit of public but is applied or set a part for the benefit of Waqif and his descendants, is not entitled to get exemption of tax under Section 44 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 read with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part A of the Sixth Schedule thereto.
The Commissioner of Taxes vs Transfin Trading Ltd and others
(Full Bench Decision): In view of the proviso to Clause-(iii) of sub-section(1) of Section 29 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984, the Assessee is not entitled to allowance of deduction of interests paid on the capital borrowed by it for the purpose of its business or profession only in case of transfer of that capital or any part thereof to another entity whose income is exempted from payment of tax.
Md. Abul Bashar vs Bangladesh and others
There is no such thing as unfettered administrative power. Govt. must follow the restrictive principles of law in exercising it`s power u/s 4 of the Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1947
Md. Mujihid Zamil vs Commissioner of Customs
Writ Petition 9656/2011, WP 9567 of 2011, 9568 of 2011, 9569 of 2011, 9608 of 2011, 9653 of 2011, 9654 of 2011, 9655 of 2011, 9657 of 2011, 9659 of 2011, 9660 of 2011, 9661 of 2011, 9662 of 2011, 2993 of 2011, 9664 of 2011 and 9665 of 2011.(Against final assessment under Customs Act, 1969 appeal has to be filed under section 193 of the said Act and writ petition not maintainable)
Noor Mohammad Khan Vs Govt. of Bangladesh
On Procedure for civil litigations under The Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation, 1900
Sreemat Sudarshanananda Puri Gurupita Vs Sree Joy Prakash Mitra Chowdhury and others
Amendment of Pleading regarding admission can not be omitted by way of amendment.
Kamal Uddin Ahmed Vs The Chairman, National Board of Revenue
IACT can invoke section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance, where the order passed by DCT is erroneous
Roushanara Akter Vs Dhaka City Corporation
Gulshan Park, can not lease out to any third party for any other purpose.
Muktar Gazi Vs Govt. of Bangladesh
Suspension of Chairman of Union Parishad on ground of conviction in criminal cases. Held: Due to pendency of appeal, conviction yet to reach its finality and as such the order of suspension has been declared as without lawful authority and be of no legal effect.
This Site is Visited :