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
Gopal Mozumder Versus Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Primary and Mass Education and others
Plato Bala Versus Government of Bangladesh and others.
Md. Mesbaul Alam and others Versus The Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Local Government, Co-operative Division, Bangladesh Secretariat, Police Station-Ramna, District-Dhaka-1000 and others.
Md. Humayun Kabir Versus Governemnt of Bangladesh and others.
Sirajul Haque alias Sirajul Haque Howlader and others VS Zulekha Begum and others
Question of examination of the signature of Rustom Howlader through expert was reasonably raised from the side of the defence. According to the provisions laid down in sections 101 and 103 of the Evidence Act, the entire onus was upon the plaintiffs to prove that the signatures given by Rustom Howlader in all the documents are false because it is their specific case that Rustom Howlader never appeared in public due to his serious ailment and indisposition and blindness and even he was to be taken to the toilet by somebody else and remained bed ridden from 1980 until his death. Plaintiffs had to take resort to expert opinion in order to discharge their initial onus under section 101 of the Evidence Act to prove that those impugned documents were executed not by Rustom Howlader but by an imposter with a scheme to grab the property and Rustom Howlader was completely unable to perform his own affairs due to his serious illness. Law says when the initial onus is discharged by the plaintiff the onus then shifts upon the defendants to show the contrary.
Now question arises whether D.W. 1 being wife of defendant No. 1 holds the same status of defendant No. 1 while deposing in the suit. Question of adverse presumption shall not arise if DW 1 holds the same position. Section 120 of the Evidence Act provides that husband instead of wife or wife instead of husband shall be competent witness. So according to the facts and circumstances of the instant case section 120 shall prevail over section 114(g) of the Evidence Act and the question on adverse presumption as argued does not arise.
The admission of Rustom Howlader that he executed those documents cannot be avoided when plaintiffs could not establish a definite and clear case on Rustom Howlader’s sickness. The execution is admitted and plaintiff had no knowledge on execution or passing of consideration being third party to the document. Plaintiffs cannot question about the consideration because it was between parties to the document. The transferee is to prove the payment of consideration when the transferor challenges the same. In the instant case, if the plaintiffs could prove by cogent and credible evidence that Rustom Howlader was seriously ill and blind from 1980 till his death, in that case the onus would lie upon the defendant to prove the payment of consideration.
Dr. Mohib Ullah Khondoker Principal (Acting) Gonoshasthaya Versus The Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Population Control and others
Md. Earul Islam and others Vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others.
Moyej Uddin Shah being dead his heirs Most. Hawa Begum Vs. Momtaj Shaha and others
There is no provision under Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure to accept or reject the report submitted by the Commissioner because the law has precisely stated that the report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record. The law has given an opportunity to the parties to the suit to examine the Commissioner with the permission of the Court, to challenge the veracity of the report.
Anamika Corporation Ltd. and others Versus Humayan Mazhar Chowdhury and others
Arbitration Act
Abu Khair Md. Nazmul Huq and others Vs. The Government of Bangladesh
Power of Attorney
Habiba Aktherrun Nahar and others Vs. Govt. of Bangaldesh
The State vs The Anti-Corruption Commission, represented by its Chairman, 1, Segun Bagicha, Dhaka and others
Khaerun Nessa alias Khairun Nessa and others vs. The Government of Bangladesh and others
Abandoned Property
Mosh. Arfuna Khatun and others Vs. Bangladesh Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka-1000 and others
Mofazzal Hossain Chowdhury Maya Vs. The State and another
Kawsar Ahmad and another Vs. The Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others.
Eftekharul Alam Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Shahbag, Dhaka and others
Md. Nobi Hossain and another Vs. The State and another
Md. Abul Kalam alias Abul Kalam Vs. The State and another
Abdul Momin Majumder Vs. The State and another
Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB) represented by its Secretary-in-Charge, Advocate Md. Sarwar Ahad Chowdhury, Hall No. 2, Supreme Court Bar Association Bhaban, Dhaka, Bangladesh and others -Vs-Bangladesh represented by the Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Division, Bangladesh Secretariat, Police Station- Ramna, Dhaka, Bangladesh and others.
It is hereby declared that section 41(1) plL¡¢l Q¡L¢l BCe, 2018 (Act No. 57 of 2018) published in the Official Gazette on 14.11.2018 and made effective on 01.10.2019 by virtue of S.R.O No. 305-Ain/2019 dated 25.09.2019 (Annexure-‘A’ to the writ petition) void and ultra vires Articles 26, 27 and 31 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
Professor Muhammad Yunus @ Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus Vs. The State
Bangladesh Labor Ain, 2006:
In view of above specific allegations of violations we are unable to find any substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that if above complaint is taken in its face value and accepted as true in its entirety even then no prima facie case of violations of above provisions of Bangladesh Labor Ain, 2006 against the GTC is made out.
The learned Advocate for the petitioner repeatedly submits that the GTC is a nonprofit company and registered under Section 28 of Companies Act. As such GTC is not liable to contribute 5% of the net profit to the Labor Welfare Fund. In support of above submission the learned Advocate produced the Memorandum and Articles and Association of the GTC. But there is no mention in above Memorandum that the GTC is a nonprofit company. On the contrary Article 71 of above Memorandum shows that GTC may earn profit but the profit shall be utilized for the advancement of the objectives as stated in the above Memorandum. Since the GTC is a profit earning company it is not understandable as to why the company will not contribute a very insignificant part of its net profit for the welfare of its labors. There is nothing in Section 28 of the Companies Act which exempts any Company registered under above provision from making above contribution to the Labor Welfare Fund.
The learned Advocate for the petitioner mentions that this case does not have a date of occurrence and the case is barred by limitation as the same has not been filed within six months as provided in Section 314 of the Bangladesh Labor Ain, 2006. The alleged violations were first detected by the complainant on 09.02.2020. He issued a letter to the GTC for taking remedial measures. No satisfactory reply having received a second inspection was held on 16.08.2021 and again the same violations were discovered. This Complaint was filed in the concerned labor court on 28.08.2021. As such, it prima facie appears that this case has a date of occurrence and the same has been filed within six months from the date of occurrence as provided in Section 314 of Bangladesh Labor Ain, 2006. Moreover it is well settled that a question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts which can be determined on consideration of evidence to be adduced at trial.
Md. Salim Khan, Chairman, 10 No. Lakkhipur Union Parishad, Chandpur Sadar Upozilla, Chandpur, son of late Abdul Hye Khan of Ramdashdi Road, Puran Bazar, Police Station District-Chandpur and others vs. Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat Building, Police Station-Shahabag, Dhaka, and others
Chandpur Science and Technology University
Tafsir Mohammad Awal Vs The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Security Services Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Secretariat, Bhaban Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others.
Durnity Daman Commission Vs Md. Sayruddin Ahammad @ Shoiruddin Ahmed and another
Md. Ziaur Rahman and others Vs. The Government of Bangladesh and others
In respect of the seniority of employees of Bangladesh Power Development Board.
Khandaker Abdus Sabur-Vs-Jamsher Ali and others
Upendra Mohan Bosak Vs Bangladesh and others
Abdul Malek Vs The State
Md. Abdul Momin Vs The State and others
Mrs. Shahela Nazmul Vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others.
Ideal Co-operative Society Limited represented by H.N.M Safiqur Rahman Vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others.
Durnity Daman Commission Vs Md. Aourangageb Siddiquee (Nannu) and another
Saleh Ahmed Vs The State and another
Durnity Daman Commission Vs Syed Md. Hossain Imam Faruk (S.M.H.I. Faruk) and another
Durnity Daman Commission Vs Muhammad Shawkat Ali alias Md. Shawkat Ali and another
Md. Saidul Kabir @ Mukul @ Saidur Kabir and others vs The State and another
Aziz Co-operative Commerce and Finance Credit Society Ltd. represented by Tajul Islam Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others
The State VS Md. Rafiqul Islam and others
Md. Meraj Miah Vs. Mossammat Alufa Khatun and others
Md. Shahadat Islam and another Vs. The Anti-Corruption Commission and another
Professor Dr. Abul Khair Vs. The State and another
Rokeya Haider VS Hasan Shareef Ahmed and others
• Document, documentary evidence, secondary evidence and marking of such evidences.
• Notarized photocopy cannot be admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits unless prior notice under Section 66 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is given to the party in custody/ possession of the originals to produce the same.
Asian Consumer Care (Pvt.) Limited, represented by its Director, Rakesh Kumar Agrawal of South Breeze Square (5th Floor), 52 Gulshan Avenue, Gulshan, Dhaka-1212. VS Marico Limited
• “Mark” and “Trade Mark” clarified.
• The goodwill of a product having customer connection is protected under the trade mark law. However, such protection cannot be given in respect of a particular colour or shape of bottle if it is found that such colour or shape has already acquired a common use in respect of a particular type of products.
• The test in a passing-off case is to determine whether the alleged product is confusingly similar.
হিউম্যান রাইটস এন্ড পিস ফর বাংলাদেশ বনাম বাংলাদেশ ও অন্যান্য
Jahanara Begum died her heirs- Md. Asraf Hossain alias Babul and others VS Monira Begum and others
• A ‘pardanashin lady’ in our sub-continental social context is a lady who lives secluded life and deals with the external world from behind her pardah or screen with any male person except a few male relations.
• The lady in question was educated and employed under the family planning department and as such she was not a pardanashin lady as understood in our social context.
Md. Mostafizur Rahman VS Ms. Amin Maria and others
• The term “Arbitration Agreement” under Section 2(n) read with the explanation to Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 2001 may, in a given context, refer to a relationship between parties beyond the said agreement.
• A reference in a written contract as regards a document containing arbitration clause itself may constitute an arbitration agreement.
Anti-Corruption Commission Vs. The State and others
Durnity Daman Commission Vs. Ismail Chowdhury Samrat and others
This Site is Visited :