Judgment : High Court Division
 
Case Type
Case Number
Year
Parties
Short Description
 

Case Number Parties Short Description
101
Md. Abdus Sobhan Versus Md. Arfanullah and others
102
Md. Ansar Ali and another Versus Md. Mahbur Rahman and others
103
Chandana Rani Sarkar Versus Protap Chandra Sarkar and anothers
104
Dilip Kumar Khashkel being died his heirs 1(a) Kalpona Rani Khaskel and others Vs Ranu Bala Khashkel and others .
105
Md. Aslam Miah Vs. Mrs. Morzina Begum and another
106
Syed Jihad Ali and others Vs. The Government of Bangladesh and others.
107
Alhaj M.A. Bari Khan Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Shipping others.
108
Md. Shamsul Haque Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Liberation War Affairs and others.
109
Nurul Kabir Vs. Sodaha Ludhi Shikdarpara Jame Masjid and others
There is no provision in the Waqfs Ordinance, 1962 prohibiting ‘a person interested in the waqf,’ as defined in section 2(8) of the Ordinance, or ‘the waqf estate itself,’ as the case may be, to establish the right, title and interest of the waqf by filing a suit or proceeding in a Court in the event of failure on the part of the Administrator of Waqfs or mutrawalli in taking necessary steps under sections 6A, 56 or 83 of the Ordinance to protect the interest of the waqf.

Accordingly, I am of the view that, being a person interested in the waqf, the Vice-president of the mosque Committee has locus standi to institute the suit representing the waqf estate for protection of its interest.
110
Pruesiau Aug Marma and another Versus Aungmra Shang Marma and another
Chittagong Hill Tracts
111
Executive Engineer, Roads and Highway Department, Tangail and others Vs. Abdul Karim being dead his heirs Md. Atikur Rahman and others
112
Abul Kasem and another Vs. Mrs. Ummul Hasnat Mahmud Ahmed being dead his heirs Asfaque Ahmed and another
It appears that the whole proceeding in regards execution and registration of the deed in question and endorsement of the Sub-Registrar therein as provided under sections 31, 32, 34, 35, 52, 58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act, as stated above, were done in accordance with those provisions of the Act and the document achieved strong presumptive evidence as to its due registration. Accordingly, burden was upon the plaintiffs to rebut such evidence by adducing strong evidence to prove that the deed in question was a product of forgery. But the plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus.
113
The State VS Etua Mura
It is well settled that in order to prove a criminal offence the prosecution has to prove the place of occurrence, date and time of the occurrence and the manner of the occurrence and more importantly connect the accused person with the commission of the offence by legal evidence and beyond reasonable doubt.
114
Md. Saiful Islam and others Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Education and others.
115
Alauddin and others VS Sree Narayan Chandra Shil being dead his heirs: 1(a) Keshob Chandra Shil and others
The interest in the estate of the testator within the words of Section 283 of Succession Act means an interest through the testator. A person who claims outside or independently of the will or claims adversely to the testator and disputes his right to deal with the property cannot be deemed to claim any interest in the estate of the deceased. The crucial point in this case is whether the appellant claimed any interest in the estate through the testator and since they do not and cannot do so they had no locus standi to be added as a party or question the execution or attestation of the will in this probate proceeding.
....
From a combined reading of sections 283(1)(c) and 63(c) of the Succession Act, it appears that the party who wants to assail a will relying on section 63(c) must at first satisfy the requirement of section 283(1)(c) that the attacking party-caveator coming under section 284 must be a party claiming interest in the estate through testator and if such party claims independently of the will cannot be said to have interest in the probate case.
....
Without the guarantee of fundamental human rights and the rule of law no nation can attain perfection. Justice is established when the idea that what is injurious to others is injurious to oneself comes to the mind of the people of the society. When there is inequality in the society, people move away from the concept of morality and treat the weak with injustice. It disrupts social behavior and state principles. This kind of injustice can be removed from the society through well thought out and specific application of law. The technicalities of the law should be used sparingly with caution keeping in mind that justice shall not come undone.
116
Mrs. Rabeya Khatun and others Versus Mrs. Taslima Hasa
117
Md. Waliul Islam and others Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others.
118
Md. Al-Amin Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and others
119
Mohammad Ali vs The State and others
120
Muhammad Mahmudur Rahman and others Versus The Government of Bangladesh and others.
NTRCA
121
K.M. Khaled Versus Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission
122
Md. Delowar Hossain Versus Bangladesh Election Commision, represented by the Chief Election Commissioner, Bangladesh Election Commission and others.
123
Md. Nazrul Islam and others Vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others.
ইউনিয়ন তথ্য সেবা কেন্দ্র
124
Muzahidul Islam Arif Versus Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others.
125
Abdus Salam Talukder and others Vs. The Government of Bangladesh and others
126
Jubair Ahmmed B.Sc Vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others.
127
Md. Mostafijur Rahman Versus The Government of Bangladesh and others
128
Md. Jahidul Islam and others Vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others.
129
Md. Rokib Uddin Mondol alias Md. Raquib Uddin Mondol, Index No. 230238, Headmaster(Retired) Banglahili Pilot School and College Hakimpur, Dinajpur. Versus Govt. of Bangladesh and others
130
Md. Rafiqul Islam Vs. The Government of Bangladesh and Others
131
Md. Khalilur Rahman and others Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others.
132
Md. Rezaul Karim, Headmaster, Kapasia Technical School (53095) Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Education Technical and Madrasha Education Department, Secretariate Link Road, Poribohanpol Bhaban, Dhaka and others.
133
Mohammad Hamidul Hoque Versus The Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Local Government Division, Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Co-operatives, Bangladesh Secretariat, Police Station-Ramna, District-Dhaka-1000 and others.
134
Mr. Abdul Bashar Mollah Vs. The Government of Bangladesh and others
135
Gopal Mozumder Versus Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Primary and Mass Education and others
136
Plato Bala Versus Government of Bangladesh and others.
137
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.
138
Md. Humayun Kabir Versus Governemnt of Bangladesh and others.
139
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.
140
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
141
Md. Earul Islam and others Vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others.
142
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.
143
Anamika Corporation Ltd. and others Versus Humayan Mazhar Chowdhury and others
Arbitration Act
144
Abu Khair Md. Nazmul Huq and others Vs. The Government of Bangladesh
Power of Attorney
145
Habiba Aktherrun Nahar and others Vs. Govt. of Bangaldesh
146
The State vs The Anti-Corruption Commission, represented by its Chairman, 1, Segun Bagicha, Dhaka and others
147
Khaerun Nessa alias Khairun Nessa and others vs. The Government of Bangladesh and others
Abandoned Property
148
LUTFOR RAHMANVS STATE
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT
149
Mosh. Arfuna Khatun and others Vs. Bangladesh Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka-1000 and others
150
Mofazzal Hossain Chowdhury Maya Vs. The State and another
This Site is Visited :