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

Case Number Parties Short Description
151
Kawsar Ahmad and another Vs. The Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others.
152
Eftekharul Alam Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Shahbag, Dhaka and others
153
Md. Nobi Hossain and another Vs. The State and another
154
Md. Abul Kalam alias Abul Kalam Vs. The State and another
155
Abdul Momin Majumder Vs. The State and another
156
Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB) represented by its Secretary-in-Charge, Advocate Md. Sarwar Ahad Chowdhury, Hall No. 2, Supreme Court Bar Association Bhaban, Dhaka, Bangladesh and others -Vs-Bangladesh represented by the Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Division, Bangladesh Secretariat, Police Station- Ramna, Dhaka, Bangladesh and others.
It is hereby declared that section 41(1) plL¡¢l Q¡L¢l BCe, 2018 (Act No. 57 of 2018) published in the Official Gazette on 14.11.2018 and made effective on 01.10.2019 by virtue of S.R.O No. 305-Ain/2019 dated 25.09.2019 (Annexure-‘A’ to the writ petition) void and ultra vires Articles 26, 27 and 31 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
157
Professor Muhammad Yunus @ Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus Vs. The State
Bangladesh Labor Ain, 2006:
In view of above specific allegations of violations we are unable to find any substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that if above complaint is taken in its face value and accepted as true in its entirety even then no prima facie case of violations of above provisions of Bangladesh Labor Ain, 2006 against the GTC is made out.
....
The learned Advocate for the petitioner repeatedly submits that the GTC is a nonprofit company and registered under Section 28 of Companies Act. As such GTC is not liable to contribute 5% of the net profit to the Labor Welfare Fund. In support of above submission the learned Advocate produced the Memorandum and Articles and Association of the GTC. But there is no mention in above Memorandum that the GTC is a nonprofit company. On the contrary Article 71 of above Memorandum shows that GTC may earn profit but the profit shall be utilized for the advancement of the objectives as stated in the above Memorandum. Since the GTC is a profit earning company it is not understandable as to why the company will not contribute a very insignificant part of its net profit for the welfare of its labors. There is nothing in Section 28 of the Companies Act which exempts any Company registered under above provision from making above contribution to the Labor Welfare Fund.
.....
The learned Advocate for the petitioner mentions that this case does not have a date of occurrence and the case is barred by limitation as the same has not been filed within six months as provided in Section 314 of the Bangladesh Labor Ain, 2006. The alleged violations were first detected by the complainant on 09.02.2020. He issued a letter to the GTC for taking remedial measures. No satisfactory reply having received a second inspection was held on 16.08.2021 and again the same violations were discovered. This Complaint was filed in the concerned labor court on 28.08.2021. As such, it prima facie appears that this case has a date of occurrence and the same has been filed within six months from the date of occurrence as provided in Section 314 of Bangladesh Labor Ain, 2006. Moreover it is well settled that a question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts which can be determined on consideration of evidence to be adduced at trial.
158
Md. Salim Khan, Chairman, 10 No. Lakkhipur Union Parishad, Chandpur Sadar Upozilla, Chandpur, son of late Abdul Hye Khan of Ramdashdi Road, Puran Bazar, Police Station District-Chandpur and others vs. Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat Building, Police Station-Shahabag, Dhaka, and others
Chandpur Science and Technology University
159
Tafsir Mohammad Awal Vs The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Security Services Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Secretariat, Bhaban Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others.
160
Durnity Daman Commission Vs Md. Sayruddin Ahammad @ Shoiruddin Ahmed and another
161
Md. Ziaur Rahman and others Vs. The Government of Bangladesh and others
In respect of the seniority of employees of Bangladesh Power Development Board.
162
Khandaker Abdus Sabur-Vs-Jamsher Ali and others
163
Upendra Mohan Bosak Vs Bangladesh and others
164
Abdul Malek Vs The State
165
Md. Abdul Momin Vs The State and others
166
Mrs. Shahela Nazmul Vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others.
167
Ideal Co-operative Society Limited represented by H.N.M Safiqur Rahman Vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others.
168
Durnity Daman Commission Vs Md. Aourangageb Siddiquee (Nannu) and another
169
Saleh Ahmed Vs The State and another
170
Durnity Daman Commission Vs Syed Md. Hossain Imam Faruk (S.M.H.I. Faruk) and another
171
Durnity Daman Commission Vs Muhammad Shawkat Ali alias Md. Shawkat Ali and another
172
Md. Saidul Kabir @ Mukul @ Saidur Kabir and others vs The State and another
173
Aziz Co-operative Commerce and Finance Credit Society Ltd. represented by Tajul Islam Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others
174
The State VS Md. Rafiqul Islam and others
175
Md. Meraj Miah Vs. Mossammat Alufa Khatun and others
176
Md. Shahadat Islam and another Vs. The Anti-Corruption Commission and another
177
Professor Dr. Abul Khair Vs. The State and another
178
Rokeya Haider VS Hasan Shareef Ahmed and others
• Document, documentary evidence, secondary evidence and marking of such evidences.
• Notarized photocopy cannot be admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits unless prior notice under Section 66 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is given to the party in custody/ possession of the originals to produce the same.
179
Asian Consumer Care (Pvt.) Limited, represented by its Director, Rakesh Kumar Agrawal of South Breeze Square (5th Floor), 52 Gulshan Avenue, Gulshan, Dhaka-1212. VS Marico Limited
• “Mark” and “Trade Mark” clarified.
• The goodwill of a product having customer connection is protected under the trade mark law. However, such protection cannot be given in respect of a particular colour or shape of bottle if it is found that such colour or shape has already acquired a common use in respect of a particular type of products.
• The test in a passing-off case is to determine whether the alleged product is confusingly similar.
180
হিউম্যান রাইটস এন্ড পিস ফর বাংলাদেশ বনাম বাংলাদেশ ও অন্যান্য
181
Jahanara Begum died her heirs- Md. Asraf Hossain alias Babul and others VS Monira Begum and others
• A ‘pardanashin lady’ in our sub-continental social context is a lady who lives secluded life and deals with the external world from behind her pardah or screen with any male person except a few male relations.
• The lady in question was educated and employed under the family planning department and as such she was not a pardanashin lady as understood in our social context.
182
Md. Mostafizur Rahman VS Ms. Amin Maria and others
• The term “Arbitration Agreement” under Section 2(n) read with the explanation to Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 2001 may, in a given context, refer to a relationship between parties beyond the said agreement.
• A reference in a written contract as regards a document containing arbitration clause itself may constitute an arbitration agreement.
183
Anti-Corruption Commission Vs. The State and others
184
Durnity Daman Commission Vs. Ismail Chowdhury Samrat and others
185
Md. Atiqur Rahman, Director, Jamuna Bank Limited and Chairman, Standard Group Limited and Standard Stitches Limited and another Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others.
186
Standard Stitches Limited, represented by its Chairman Md. Atiqur Rahman and another Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others.
187
Mrs. Mohsina Rahman Vs. A.K.M. Zakaria Hossain Chowdhury and another
• “Party” in arbitration agreement has been clarified.
• In view of the development-agreements in question, the term ‘party’ in an arbitration proceeding has to be given an extended meaning in view of the provisions under Section 2 of the Arbitration Act, 2001 and as such the term ‘party’ shall include the purported real owner behind the scene.
188
Dr. Muntassir Uddin Khan Mamoon alias Muntassir Mamoon Vs. Begum Munnujan Sufian (M.P.) and others
• If a relief sought in plaint is apparently barred by limitation, such relief may be struck-out on an application under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
189
Mohammad Shishir Manir and others Vs. Chairman, Anti-Corruption Commission and others.
190
Durnity Daman Commission Vs. Dr. S.M. Nazmul Huq and another
191
মোহাম্মদ জহিরুল ইসলাম বনাম বাংলাদেশ সরকার ও অন্যান্য
192
Accom Travels and Tours Limited, represented by its authorized person Md. Humayun Kabir Vs. Oman Air S.A.O.C and others.
Larger Bench Decision (Arbitration Matter):

• In view of the provisions under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Arbitration Act 2001, the provisions of the said Act, except the provisions under Sections 45, 46 and 47, are not applicable in respect of an arbitration where the seat of such arbitration is in a foreign country. Thus, the provisions under Sections 7, 7A and 10 cannot be invoked in such a case except that the power of the Court concerned to take interim measures under Section 7A of the said Act may only be invoked at the stage of enforcement of foreign arbitral award.

• In spite of such non-applicability, the Court below should have stayed the further proceedings of the said suit in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
193
Sadrul Huq being dead his legal heirs Ziaul Haque and others. VS Farhana Firdousi and another.
• Anyone can undertake to pay dower on behalf of husband in Muslim marriage;
• Any valid property, cash or valuables may take the form of dower under Muslim Law;
• Landed properties may be recovered as dower by filing suit before the Family Court as established under the Family Court Ordinance, 1985.
194
South East Bank Limited VS Md. A.S. M Rubaiyat Forman and others.
• The interest of auction purchaser pre-exists the auction sale and as such he is entitled to challenge auction sale under Order XXI, rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to correct any mistake or fraudulent act.
195
Md. Anower Hossain VS M.A. Nasir and others.
• Civil revision not maintainable against interlocutory orders passed by the Vested Property Return Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal;
• Single bench decision in Surotunnessa case, 68 DLR-463 on maintainability of civil revision is not correct.
196
A.S.M. Mahadi Hassan Vs. The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others
197
Dr. Shahidul Alam Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and others.
198
Dipok Guho Roy and another vs. the Government of Bangladesh and others
Regarding the application of the limitation Act in filing application under Section 10(1) of the Arpita Shampatti Prattarpan Ain, 2001.
199
Haji Md. Salim (Ex. M.P.) - Versus- The State and another
Conviction and Sentence Under Section 27(1) of the দুর্নীতি দমন কমিশন আইন, ২০০৪.
200
Md. Moshiar Rahman vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others
Regarding to ascertain the age of the petitioner who is a government employee on the basis of the Secondary School Certificate.
This Site is Visited :