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

Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Abdul Khaleque and others -vs- Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barisal
Rule is discharged
2
Md. Lutfor Rahman Miah and another vs. The Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others
Rejected summarily
3
Mr. Maksufur Rahman vs The State and another
Discharged
4
Anti-Corruption Commission, represented by its Chairman, 1, Segunbagicha, Dhaka vs. The State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka and others
Absolute
5
Md. Tari Pramanik @ Md. Tariqul Islam being dead his heirs- Most. Echneara Bibi and others
6
Mr. Md. Ajmol Hossian Vs. The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka others
7
Md. Maksud Alam alias Ripon and another vs the state
8
Md. Mehedi Hassan Roni Vs. The State
9
Joynal Abedin alias Shohag Vs. The State
10
Md. Alamgir Hossain (Sunni) Vs. Rahimas Akter and others
11
Salina Begum @ Salina Khan Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others
12
Md. Mahatab and another
13
Netrokona Md. Rafiqul Islam @ Rafique khandakar vs the state
14
Doctor Md. Abul Kalam Azad vs. the State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Jessore
Absolute
15
Sarwar Matbar and two others
16
Chowdhury Md. Abul Hasan Ibn Kashem alias Abu Md. Bin Kashem Chowdhury -Vs- Chowdhury Md. Abu Nasar Ibn Kashem and others
A party may be considered a necessary party after fulfilling two conditions. First, there must be a right to some relief against him regarding the matter involved in the suit.
17
Md. Lutfor Rahman Sarder Vs. The State and another
18
Soleman Talukdar being dead his heirs and heiressess Md. Amjad Hossain and others
19
Md. Abdul Latif Mirja -Versus- The State and another
20
Aloke Kumar Nandi Vs. The Sate and another
21
Ripon Roy alias Ripon Chandra Roy vs. the State and another
Discharged
22
Abul Hossain Vs Mst. Aleya Begum alias Alo and others
23
Farid Khan Vs. The State and others
24
Md. Billal Hosen Vs. The State
25
Abul Bashar Vs. The State
26
Abdul Hamid being dead, his heirs Md. Monju Miah and others -Vs- Md. Siddique Miah being dead, his heirs Kolpona Khatun and others
The homestead of an owner in a rural area is exempted from all legal processes, rather than in order to get such protection, the homestead must be in a rural area as per the proviso so enumerated in section 6 of the land reform Ordinance 1984. Any person, who is in possession of a homestead, will be an `owner` and enjoy the protection under the Ordinance.
27
The Government of Bangladesh and others Vs. Md. Kamruzzmaan Khan and others
Appeal is disposed of.
28
Jewel Mir (Jhatan) and others ... Plaintiffs-Applicants-Petitioners. -VersusEnglish Pressbritarian Church, represented by the Church of Bangladesh Mission and others ... Defendants-Opposite parties- opposite parties
The rule is discharged
29
Laila Arjuman Banu (Laila) Vs. Md. Rafiur Rahman Khan (Saikat) and others.
Discharged.
30
Complete Education for alternative development (CEFAD) foundation. .... Petitioner -VersusInternational leasing and financial services limited and others ....Opposite-parties
Absolute
31
Monwar Sadat and another -vs - The State and another
Discharged
32
The State -vs- Sajib Khan and others
A) Death Reference No. 94 of 2016 is rejected; B) Criminal Appeal No. 6881 of 2016, Criminal Appeal No. 6937 of 2016, Jail Appeal No. 253 of 2016, Jail Appeal No. 254 of 2016, and Jail Appeal No. 47 of 2017 are dismissed with modification of the sentences. The Rule issued in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 6859 of 2017 is discharged. The conviction and sentences of death as awarded to condemned prisoners Sajib Khan, Sakil Miah, and Imran under section 8 of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 are commuted to imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentences of death and fine of Taka 1,00,000/- each as awarded to them under section 302 of the Penal Code are also commuted to imprisonment for life. The other order of conviction and sentence of 7 years under section 201 of the Penal Code will remain as before. All the sentences will run concurrently. These convicts should be shifted from the condemned cell to the normal cell at once. C) Criminal Appeal No. 6901 of 2016 and Jail Appeal No. 255 of 2016 are allowed in part. Jail Appeal No. 256 of 2016 is allowed. The conviction and sentence of death and fine of taka 1,00,000/- as awarded to condemned prisoners Samim Osman and Rubel Miah under section 8 of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 are set aside. The conviction and sentence of 7 years under section 201 of the Penal Code as awarded to Appellant No. 1 Samim Osman is hereby upheld and confirmed. This convict-appellant be shifted from the condemned cell to the normal cell at once. Appellant No. 2 Rubel Miah is found not guilty of the charge leveled against him and he is acquitted of all the charges. The condemned prisoner Rubel Miah be set at liberty if not wanted in any other case.
33
Rupayan Housing Estate Limited … Appellant -VersusHazi Mohammad Mustafa Zaman …Respondent
The appeal is dismissed.
34
Mst. Sahara Begum … Defendant-Appellant. -VersusMd. Abdul Mannan and others …Plaintiffs-Respondents.
The appeal is dismissed
35
Md. Alal Biswas Vs. The State
36
Mst. Sahanara Begum @ Bulu -Versus- The State
37
Posritosh sarker alias Poritosh Roy vs The State
38
Md. Hashem Hawlader being dead his heirs- Md. Khalilur Rahman Howlader and others Vs. Abdul Berik Fakir and others
39
Saleha Begum and others Vs. Md. Mosharaf Hossain and others
40
Mizanur Rahman vs the state
41
Hasna Bewa alias Hameda and others vs Md. Layeb Uddin being dead his legal heirs Mst. Zorina Bewa and others
DISCHARGED
42
Alhaj Advocate Rebeka Sultana Daiji and another vs Shah Newaj Ibne Mustaque and others
Disposed of
43
Al Hajj Mostafizur Rahman Miah vs Radhe Sham Datta
ABSOLUTE
44
Al Hajj Mostafizur Rahman Miah vs Radhe Sham Datta and others
ABSOLUTE
45
A.T.M. Aminul Islam @ Babu Vs. The State
46
Ainuddin Haider
47
Raju Ahmed vs- The State and another
The issue as raised by the petitioner is not a res integra. Our apex Court settled the issue in Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 1059-1061 of 2024. In the said case, convicts under section 138 of the NI Act, without depositing 50% of the total amount of the respective cheques, filed applications under section 426(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be released on bail to enable them to present an appeal. The said applications were rejected. Against the orders, the convicts filed Criminal Revision Nos. 3178, 3180, and 3179 of 2024 and obtained Rule and they were also enlarged on bail. Complainants of the cases preferred Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 1059-1061 of 2024. In the said Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeals our apex Court held that section 426(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not contradictory with the provision of section 138A of the NI Act, rather the provision of section 426(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will be applicable subject to fulfillment of condition stipulated under section 138A of the NI Act i.e. subject to deposit 50% of the total amount of the cheque. Therefore, we are of the view that the trial court rightly passed the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the petitioner and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the application is rejected summarily.
48
Raju Ahmed -Vs- The State and another
The issue as raised by the petitioner is not a res integra. Our apex Court settled the issue in Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 1059-1061 of 2024. In the said case, convicts under section 138 of the NI Act, without depositing 50% of the total amount of the respective cheques, filed applications under section 426(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be released on bail to enable them to present an appeal. The said applications were rejected. Against the orders, the convicts filed Criminal Revision Nos. 3178, 3180, and 3179 of 2024 and obtained Rule and they were also enlarged on bail. Complainants of the cases preferred Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 1059-1061 of 2024. In the said Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeals our apex Court held that section 426(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not contradictory with the provision of section 138A of the NI Act, rather the provision of section 426(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will be applicable subject to fulfillment of condition stipulated under section 138A of the NI Act i.e. subject to deposit 50% of the total amount of the cheque. Therefore, we are of the view that the trial court rightly passed the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the petitioner and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the application is rejected summarily.
49
Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Mymensingh and another -Vs-Swapan Kumar Sen Gupta and others
Absolute
50
Md. Motaleb Khalifa @ Md. Abdul Motaleb Khalifa and others-Vs-Md. Akbar Ali Khalifa and others
Absolute
This Site is Visited :