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

Case Number Parties Short Description
151
Main Uddin -vs- The State and others
152
Md. Abdus Salam -vs- The State and others
153
Shamsur Rahman -vs- The State and another
154
Sayed Abdul Qayum -vs- The State and another
155
Md. Ayub Chowdhury -vs- The State
156
Tarekuzzaman and others -vs- Md. Rabiuyl Islam and another
157
A.K.M. Hasan and others -vs- The State
158
Khandadar Mehmood Alam alais Nadim -vs- The State and another
159
Mizanur Rahman Bhuiyan and another -vs- The State and another
160
Sardar Tofazzal Hossain Liakat -vs- The State and others
161
Hashibul Hassan alias Lavloo -vs- The State
162
Md. Abdul Wahid -vs- The State
163
Bibhuti Halder vs- The State
164
Keshob Lal Dutta -vs- 1. Sumonta Patikor being dead his legal heirs- 1(a). Sanjib Chandra Dutta and others
165
Abdul Gani Contractor -vs- The State
166
167
168
169
170
Tutul Biswas and others Vs. The State
171
172
173
174
Jeans 2000 Limited and another ........... Plaintiffs-appellants -Versus- Scholastica Private Limited and others ...... Defendants-respondents
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
Abu Taher Vs. The State
186
Mizanur Rahman Vs. The State
187
Shakil Ahmed Tanvir @ Shakil Vs. The State
188
Most. Hasna Begum Vs. The State
189
190
Md. Anowar Hossain Vs., The State
191
Alhaj Mohammad Yeaheya Vs. The State
192
Mohammed Helal Uddin vs National Board of Revenue and others
In view of the above observations and finding given by this Bench in connection with writ petition No.14643 of 2022 as well as considering the facts and the position of law, we have no manner of doubt to find that imposing penalty of Tk.14,83,442.49/- (Taka fourteen lac eighty three thousand four hundred forty two and forty nine poisa only) by the respondent concerned under Section 65(6) while making final demand of Tk.14,83,442.49/- (Taka fourteen lac eighty three thousand four hundred forty two and forty nine poisa only) under Section 73(2) of the Act, 2012 without first issuing a notice in Form Mushok 12.12 asking to show cause to that effect with personal hearing of the petitioner concern so far it relates to imposition of penalty, are liable to be struck down for having been issued issuing without lawful authority and hence, of no legal effect.
193
Mosaraf Hossain Vs The state and another
When a Naraji Petition is filed by the aggrieved prson the tribunal after examination ought to have sent the matter for further inquiry as per section 27(1ka) and (ka) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain,2000 because by now it is settled that Naraji Petition is a fresh complaint. The Tribunal did not take cognizance offence on the basis of police report, nor it directed for further investigation on the basis of Naraji Petition under section 202 of the code of criminal procedure as such the taking cognizance of offence on the basis of naraji petition without examining the complainant under section 200 is without jurisdiction, unlawful and abuse of the processes of the court. “It is evident from the materials on record that the incident of assault on the complainant is alleged to have occurred on 06.02.2009, whereas the accused husband claims to have divorced the complainant on 19.01.2009. The High Court Division observed that since the divorce took place earlier, the victim was not supposed to be present in the house of her husband after 19.01.2009”.
194
195
196
197
Md. Majibar Rahman and others vs Mafizal Haque and others
198
Md. Abdul Jabbar Miah vs Md. Abdul Hannan and another
disposed of
199
Md. Abdul Mannan
200
Sujit Sarker and others vs The Government of the People`s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Primary and Mass Education, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others
Absolute
This Site is Visited :