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

Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Belait Hossain being dead his heirs- Afia Begum and Ayesha and others Vs. NIjam Guni and others
2
Ruhul Amin and others Vs. Md. Masud Ali Sheikh and others.
Absolute.
3
Executive Engineer, RHD Vs. The Rupsha Engineers Limited and others.
Discharged
4
Md. Hachen Ali Fakir being dead his heirs heiresses Mosammat Aleka Bewa and others
5
Md. Torab Ali being dead his legal heirs; 1(a) Surjaban Bibi and others-Vs-Md. Sharafat Ali
Discharged
6
Rattan Ali Howlader -vs- Afsar uddin Howlader and others.
Rule is discharged
7
Tahira Ahad versus Abu Sayed Sarwar alias Hasan Sarwar and others
Disposed of
8
Md. Rafiqul Islam Gazi
9
Abdul Mazid Vs. Abu Taher and others
10
Md. Jahangir Hossain Vs. Nur Nahar Niha
11
Md. Khorshed Alom and others versus Zakir Hossain and others
Allowed
12
Md. Harunur Rashid Rana and others versus Md. Abdul Jabbar Miah and others
Allowed
13
Dr. Badiul Alam Majumdar and others and Md. Mofazzal Hossain (Freedom Fighter) vs Government of Bangladesh and others
In the light of the above observations and findings following decisions have been taken by this Court:
a) Act No. 14 of 2011, i.e. Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 2011 is found not void as a whole;
b) The repeal of Article 58A and Chapter IIA of the Constitution with regard to Non-Party Caretaker Government vide Sections 20 and 21 of the Act No.14 of 2011 has destroyed the basic structure of the Constitution, i.e. democracy; hence, those two sections are declared void being ultra vires the Constitution, with prospective effect;
c) With the repeal of referendum, as it was part of Article 142 of the Constitution vide Twelfth Amendment Act, 1991 has negated the will of the people to express their opinion on the amendability of the Preamble and Articles 8, 48 and 56 of the Constitution; hence, repealing the provision of referendum under Article 142 vide Section 42 of the Act No.14 of 2011 is declared void, being repugnant to and inconsistent with the basic structure of the Constitution. Consequently, Article 142 as it then was vide Twelfth Amendment Act, 1991 is hereby restored;
d) Incorporating Articles 7A and 7B after Article 7 of the Constitution is squarely contradictory to Article 7, guaranteeing the will of the people and the supremacy of the Constitution including the right of freedom of thought and conscious and of speech and expression. It also, has taken away the power of amendability of the successor Parliament. Hence, it is declared void and a nullity in the eye of the supreme law of the land, i.e. the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Consequently, Section 7 of the Act, 2011 incorporating Articles 7A and 7B after Article 7 of the Constitution is hereby declared void being ultra-vires the Constitution;
e) High Court Division is the creature of the Constitution with plenary power of judicial review over the impugned actions of the executive, even the legislature. It has the power to declare amendment of law void which touches the basic structure of the Constitution. Moreso, High Court Division is the guardian of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. The Legislature vide Article 44(2) has allowed said power of the High Court Division to be swallowed up by any other court, which is the product of statute. Thus, it comes in direct conflict with Article 102(1) read with Article 44(1) of the Constitution.
Accordingly, Section 18 of the Act No.14 of 2011 so far it relates to incorporation of Article 44(2) is hereby declared as void, non-est and a nullity having altered the basic structure of the Constitution; and
f) Except Article 58A and Chapter IIA, Article 142 so far it relates to repeal of referendum, Articles 7A and 7B and Article 44(2) of the Constitution, the legality and propriety of all other impugned Sections of the Act No.14 of 2011, i.e. the Constitution ( Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 2011 vide which respective Articles of the Constitution including its Preamble have been amended by the Parliament by way of insertion, modification, substitution, repeal etc., are left to be looked into/decided by the successor Parliament in accordance with law.
14
Md. Ala Boxh Khan, being dead, his legal heirs: Mst. Rahela Begum @ Raihela Begum @ Rahela Bewa and others -Vs- Md. Mojnur Rahman
It manifests from the above provisions that an ex parte judgment and decree can be set aside on two grounds: (I) that the summons was not duly served or (II) that any sufficient cause prevented him from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing.
15
Farid Hasan Mahadi and others versus Government of the People`s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat Building, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others
Absolute
16
Rana Miah -Versus- The State and another
17
Shamsunnahar and others-Vs-Nurul Alam and others
Absolute in part
18
Md. Imran Ali Vs. Anuara Begum
Discharged
19
Monjil Housing and Developer Limited, House No. 61, Road No. 18, Sector-7, Uttara, Dhaka represented by the Managing Director Md. Zahirul Alam Chowdhury.-Vs-Mst. Kohinur Begum, wife of Md. Esob Khan and others
Dismissed
20
Mr. Sahil Humayun and others … Appellants-petitioners -VersusMrs. Rina Humayun and another …Respondents-opposite parties
The appeal is disposed of
21
Md. Shawkat Ali alias Shawkat Mia and another Vs. Land Survey Tribunal, Tangail and others
Rule Nisi is disposed of.
22
Md. Yashin and others. … Defendant -Appellants -VersusSayedul Haque @ Murad Hossain and others. …Plaintiffs-Respondents
The appeal is disposed
23
Mosammat Anwara Begum being dead her heirs 1(a) Khandoker Jakir Hossain and others. … Defendant nos. 5 and 6-Appellants. -VersusMd. Mohosin Dewan and others. …Plaintiffs-Respondents
The appeal is allowed
24
Dhaka Wasa Karmachari Bahmuki Samabaya Samity Limited Vs. Dhaka WASA
25
Government of Bangladesh Vs. Consumer Mitex limited and others
Allowed in part
26
Syed Belayet Hossain - Vs - Mustafizur Rahman
Rule is discharged
27
Mosammat Rowshan Ara - Vs - Md. Altaf Hossain and others
Rule is discharged
28
Amena Begum Himu -Vs - Masuma Begum and another
Rule is discharged
29
Md. Abdul Khalek alias Malek and others -Vs - Md. Golam Mostafa and anothers
Disposed of
30
Sirajul Islam -Vs- Md. Ruhul Amin and others
Rule is Discharged
31
Chittoranjan Pal and others -Vs - Sheikh Emran and others
Disposed of
32
Md. Habibur Rahman - Vs- Akramul Haque Chowdhury and others
Disposed of
33
Md. Alimuddin -Vs- Md A. Jalil and others
Disposed of
34
Md. Abu Sayed Mia. -Vs- Mahfuza Khatun and others
Express reference to Talab-i-mowasibat is necessary when the second demand, namely Talab-i-ishhad, is made. The Rules of Mohammadan law provide that the formalities are to be strictly performed by the preemptor. the preemptor-opposite party has failed to discharge his onus of proof and the trial Court below in the observation and findings on the basis of evidences on records, rightly held that the deed-in-question is purely a deed of exchange not a sub-kabala and as such it is not pre-emptable under the ambit of Section 236 of the Mohammadan Law.
35
Farid Ahmed vs the state and another
36
Md. Ismail and others-Vs-Anwara Begum being dead her legal heirs; Md. Mofizur Rahman and others
Discharged
37
Government and others Vs. Mohammad Salimuddin and others
Dismissed
38
Sufia Begum and others Vs. Nazrul Islam being dead his legal heirs Farida Nasrin and others
Appeal is disposed of.
39
A.K.M. Shafiqur Rahman vs. The State and another
Disposed of
40
Anwar Miah vs. Md. Hamdu Miah and others
Discharged
41
Abdul Jabber Tarek Vs. Amulya Kumar Dutta @ Amulaya Chandra Dutta and others
Appeal is dismissed.
42
Md. Manik Vs. The State
43
BUREAU VERITAS (BIVAC) Bangladesh Limited -Versus- Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others
The Rule issued in all writ petitions are made absolute
44
Md. Afaz Uddin and others Vs- Mst. Jubeda Khatun and others
The Rule is disposed of. The learned Assistant Judge, Goforgaon, Mymensingh is hereby directed to dispose of Title Suit No. 113 of 2020 as early as possible if, in the meantime, same is not otherwise disposed of and both the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of possession of the suit land till disposal of the suit.
45
Muhibur Rahman and another -Vs- Mst. Rasheda Akhter and another
Onus in a suit for declaring a Heba-bil-ewaz deed in favour of the defendant was forged, and without consideration, the initial onus was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff, having discharged that onus, is shifted on the defendant to prove that there was the intention of making the heba-bil-ewaz and that the consideration was paid. The onus of proving the formalities in connection with the deed is upon the person who upholds the transaction. The defence side wants the courts to believe that the sale deed Ext.2, the basis of Ext. A is a bonafide document for valuable consideration, but no evidence in this regard having been adduced, the said Ext. cannot be allowed to stand. The minor discrepancy in deposition of a witness, which is an irrelevant point, has not impacted the trustworthiness of the witness.
46
Md. Yakub Ali @ Yakub Hossain and others Vs. Hasan Ali Bhuiyan
47
Md. A. Khalek Vs. Md. Belayet Gazi being dead his heirs- Mohammad Nesar Uddin Gazi
48
R.M. Carton Limited- Versus- The Commissioner of Taxes, Taxes Zone-6, Segunbagicha, Dhaka-1000
the reference application is rejected as being incompetent
49
Md. Mamun Ahmed -Versus- Government of Bangladesh and others
The Rule is disposed of
50
The Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, ICD, Kamlapur, Dhaka -Versus- Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal and others
The Rule is made absolute
This Site is Visited :