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

Case Number Parties Short Description
201
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
202
Laila Arjuman Banu (Laila) Vs. Md. Rafiur Rahman Khan (Saikat) and others.
Discharged.
203
Complete Education for alternative development (CEFAD) foundation. .... Petitioner -VersusInternational leasing and financial services limited and others ....Opposite-parties
Absolute
204
Monwar Sadat and another -vs - The State and another
Discharged
205
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.
206
Rupayan Housing Estate Limited … Appellant -VersusHazi Mohammad Mustafa Zaman …Respondent
The appeal is dismissed.
207
Mst. Sahara Begum … Defendant-Appellant. -VersusMd. Abdul Mannan and others …Plaintiffs-Respondents.
The appeal is dismissed
208
Md. Alal Biswas Vs. The State
209
Mst. Sahanara Begum @ Bulu -Versus- The State
210
Posritosh sarker alias Poritosh Roy vs The State
211
Md. Hashem Hawlader being dead his heirs- Md. Khalilur Rahman Howlader and others Vs. Abdul Berik Fakir and others
212
Saleha Begum and others Vs. Md. Mosharaf Hossain and others
213
Mizanur Rahman vs the state
214
Hasna Bewa alias Hameda and others vs Md. Layeb Uddin being dead his legal heirs Mst. Zorina Bewa and others
DISCHARGED
215
Alhaj Advocate Rebeka Sultana Daiji and another vs Shah Newaj Ibne Mustaque and others
Disposed of
216
Al Hajj Mostafizur Rahman Miah vs Radhe Sham Datta
ABSOLUTE
217
Al Hajj Mostafizur Rahman Miah vs Radhe Sham Datta and others
ABSOLUTE
218
A.T.M. Aminul Islam @ Babu Vs. The State
219
Ainuddin Haider
220
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.
221
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.
222
Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Mymensingh and another -Vs-Swapan Kumar Sen Gupta and others
Absolute
223
Md. Motaleb Khalifa @ Md. Abdul Motaleb Khalifa and others-Vs-Md. Akbar Ali Khalifa and others
Absolute
224
Most. Rahima Begum being dead her heirs; Most. Mahmuda Begum and others -Vs-Mohammad Ali Sardar and others
Absolute
225
Gulshana Jannat-Vs-Hasiba Bibi and others
Absolute
226
Md. Shahidul Islam Khandoker and others-Vs-Hajera Begum
Absolute
227
Yasmin and others. -Vs- Kolim Ullah and others
The record of rights is not a document of title. It does not create or extinguish title to land.
228
Md. Abu Bokkor Pramanik-Vs-Md. Abdur Rashid and others
Discharged
229
Md. Abu Bokkor Pramanik-Vs-Md. Abdur Rashid and others
Discharged
230
Principal, Sokina Azahar Technical College and Secretary, Managing Committee vs. Dhali Rabiuzzaman Khan and others
231
Md. Saidul Islam ........ Petitioner -Versus- Mosammet Sharmin Akhter Bithi .... Opposite party
232
Nasiruddin Ahmed Chowdhury vs. Akter Ali being dead his legal heirs Jabeda Khatun and others
DISCHARGED
233
Jasim Uddin and others vs Mohammed Ullah being dead his legal heirs Md. Abu Taher and others
ABSOLUTE
234
Md. Azizur Rahman and others-vs-Government of Bangladesh and others
Disposed of with observations.
235
Lutfun Nesa -Vs- Feli Nessa and others.
A person, if not authorise by the plaintiff or defendant, except husband and wife, could not depose on his behalf in the Court, if depose, he would be treated as incompetent witness. ‘‘In a suit for partition the co-sharers are necessary parties in the sense that in the absence of any such co-sharer the Judgment which will be given in such a suit may be rendered infructuous at the option of the excluded party.’’
236
Debangshu Kumar Sarkar Vs- The state
Disposed of. The office is directed to communicate a copy of the order to the learned Judge, Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No.1, Rangpur to take necessary steps to transmit the case record of Nari-O-Shishu case being No.37 of 2022 to Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No.2, Rangpur for expeditious trial and disposal. The office is also directed to communicate a copy of the order to the learned Judge, Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No. 2, Rangpur to take necessary steps as per the direction given herein above.
237
Md. Zahid @ Dyle Zahid vs the state
238
Alal Hossain Khan and another Vs. The State
239
Asraful Alom Khan Vs. The State and another
240
Mrs. Afsana Barik Malik Vs. Zakaria Hossain Chowdhury and others
Rule is discharged.
241
Giasuddin and another Vs. Most. Jahura Akter and others
Rule is discharged.
242
Government of Bangladesh Vs. Md. Jamal Mia and others
Appeal is dismissed.
243
M/S Sultan Bai Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. Branch Manager, Pubali Bank, Shaheb Bazar Branch and others
Appeal is dismissed.
244
Md. Farid Ali Vs. Mrs. Nurjahan Begum
Rule is discharged.
245
Md. Nurul Huda Vs- The State and another
Rule Discharged
246
Md. Nurul Huda Vs- The State and another
Rule Discharged
247
Md. Nurul Huda Vs- The state and another
Rule Discharged
248
Shaharavanu being dead, her legal heirs: Md. Habib Mir @ Mir Habibur Rahman and others. -Vs- Sheikh Humayun Kabir and others.
An ex parte decree can also be set aside by a regular suit if it is provided that there was suppression of summons and the defendant was prevented from defending the suit by reason of fraud.
249
Md. Khabiruddin Howlader
250
Md. Taizuddin Molla being dead his heirs- Mst. Nesaron Nesa and others Vs. Md. Hemayet Hossen being dead his heirs- Shamima Akter and others
This Site is Visited :