the Parties/Case No and Citation
||The Election Commission Bangladesh and another
Noruzzaman Sarker and others
(MUHAMMAD IMMAN ALI, J)
11 SCOB  AD 1
|Election Disputes– Appropriate Forum.
Where the total number of votes cast in a centre exceeds either the total number of ballot papers issued to the centre or the total number of votes enrolled for that centre, or if during the counting of ballot papers a ballot box is found missing or it is snatched away or if the Presiding Officer makes glaringly contradictory reports as to the result of the counting of votes, without reasonable explanation, then the Election Commission need not wait for determination of the dispute by the Election Tribunal. But where no such thing has happened but allegation is brought after the declaration of the result then it is always desirable that dispute, if any, should go to the Tribunal for determination.
||Haji Shamsul Alam
Dr. Ashim Sarker & ors.
(Hasan Foez Siddique, J )
11 SCOB  AD 7
|Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893.
Basic Pre-requisites for buy up.
It is observed that to get an order of pre-emption under section 4 of the Partition Act three condition are to be fulfilled, i.e. (1) the property must be dwelling house, (2) it must be the undivided family and then (3) the purchasers must file the partition suit. That is one of the basic conditions for applicability of section 4 of the Partition Act which has been expressly mentioned in the section is that the stranger transferee must sue for partition and separate possession of the undivided share transferred to him by the co-sharer. If the stranger moves execution application for separating his share by metes and bounds it would be treated to be application for suing for partition and it is not necessary that separate suit should be filed by such stranger transferee.
In this case the defendant No. 5 appellant Shamsul Alam is the transferee of the land under partition and the suit has been filed by Dr. Ashim Sarker who is not the transferee and appellant did not pray for any saham as yet in the said suit for partition, so the prayer for buying up by the paintiff was not at all maintainable at the stage of the suit when the same was prayed for. The courts below have committed error of law in allowing the prayer for buying up.
||The State Vs. Nurul Amin
Baitha(absconding) and another
(MIRZA HUSSAIN HAIDER, J)
11 SCOB  AD 13
|Conversion of conviction from special law to general law, Complete Justice u/a 104 of the Constitution
The High Court Division does not have authority to convert the conviction from special law to general law.
The conversion of conviction from special law to a different law can only be done by the Appellate Division empowered under Article 104 of the Constitution to do ”complete justice“ in appropriate cases pending before it under Article 103 of the Constitution.