The question is whether the expressions ‘fË¡fÉ p¤c’ and ‘cä p¤c’ used in this sub-clause (C) above include remission of all interest accrued from the day of taking loan and already paid by the sick industry by installments against the total outstanding amount to be excluded or the interest accrued on the day of recommendation made by the Special Committee out of the total amount of outstanding dues. The expression ‘fË¡fÉ’ means obtainable or to be paid, that is, the interest which has accrued from the date of privilege of remission of interest given and not the past interest already paid.

Whether the statements made in the plaint are false or not, are purely questions of fact and are to be decided at the trial. In rejecting the plaint, the learned Judges invoked section 151 of the Code, but the inherent power under the section cannot be exercised on assumptions and presumptions of facts and or on suspicion. In other words, the truth or falsity of the statements made in the plaint cannot at all be a ground to reject a plaint either be it under Order VII, rule 11 or under section 151 of the Code.

The offence which these two condemned prisoners committed is most heinous and brutal. These two condemned prisoners along with other accused Mir Hossain, with cool brain, made a plan to hijack a baby taxi by killing the driver and according to that pre- plan they hired the C.N.G. baby taxi of the deceased as passengers and took the baby taxi to a lonely place and thereafter they murdered the baby taxi driver brutally. This type of crime is on the increase in our society. For hijacking a baby taxi or any other vehicle the hijackers do not hesitate for a moment to take the life of the innocent driver of the vehicle which is very much precious for the near and dear ones of that poor driver. This type of killers/murderers cannot and should not get any mercy from the court of law. There is no reason for showing any leniency or mercy to this type of offenders who are enemy for the whole society. So we are unable to accept the submission of the learned advocate for the condemned prisoners to reduce the sentence of death to life imprisonment. In our opinion this is a fit case for imposing death sentence on killers.

If more than one employee is appointed at the same time, their seniority will be counted on the basis of merit list prepared by the selection committee and not from the date of their joining.

The way it has been interpreted, the word “life” does not bear its normal linguistic meaning. In other words, a person sentenced to imprisonment for life does not necessarily spend his life in prison, although section 45 of the Penal Code defines “Life” as the life of a human being unless the contrary appears from the context. The given interpretation has been arrived at with the aid of section 57 of the Penal Code, which provides that in calculating fraction of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to rigorous imprisonment for 30 (thirty) years. This last mentioned section read with relevant provision of the Jail Code effectively means that a person sentenced to imprisonment for life will be released after spending a maximum of 2212 years in prison. Under section 35A of the Code of Criminal Procedure the period of time spent by the accused in custody during pendency of the trial would be deducted from his total sentence. Thus we find that in many serious murder cases, where the trial lasts for many years, the accused who is found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life gets released after serving a total of 22½ years including the period spent in custody during trial.

It appears from the judgment of the High Court Division that the High Court Division found that there was a valid agreement between the plaintiff and defendant wherein an arbitration clause has been stipulated and pursuant to the said agreement an arbitration proceeding has already been commenced before the Arbitration Tribunal at Liverpool. This suit has been instituted subsequent to the arbitration proceeding. The High Court Division held that though written statement has been filed but, in fact, the same can be treated as information to the court regarding pendency of arbitration proceeding before Arbitration Tribunal at Liverpool.

Since arbitration proceeding has already been initiated between the parties before initiation of the instant suit, we are of the view that the High Court Division rightly disposed of the Rule staying further proceeding of the suit with a direction to settle the dispute in the arbitration proceeding.