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

Case Number Parties Short Description
951
Md. Mominul Islam Vs. The State
952
Md. Anisur Rahman and another Vs. The State
953
Md. Alamgir Hossain Vs. The State
954
Mausd Rana Rubel
955
Mohammad Rafique Vs. The State
956
Liakat Ali Vs. The State
957
Factories and Establishment Inspection Directorate, Dhaka, represented by Md. Tariqul Islam, Labour Inspector (General), Office of the Deputy Inspector General, Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments, 4 Rajuk Avenue, Dhaka vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others.
958
Md. Sultan Ahmed Khan Vs. Government of the People`s Republic of Bangladesh, Represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Khulna.
Absolute.
959
Abdul Gafur Waqf Estate and another Vs. Mohibunnessa Khatun
Discharged.
960
Jobeda Khatun -versus- Shamsul Islam and others
Decree for partition
961
Abul Hossain Vs. The State
962
Md. Iqbal Hossain -versus- Mohammad Harun or Rashid being dead his heirs Sahadat Hossain and others
Application for correction
963
Sultan Khan Vs The State and another
The medical examination of the victim of the commission of the offense under the Nari-O- Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 shall be done in a government hospital or in any private hospital recognized by the government for that purpose regarding injuries caused by the accused.
964
Sultan Khan Vs The State and another
Nevertheless, Section 463 of the penal code defines forgery including forgery of documents that purport to give authority to any person to receive or deliver any payment of money or purports to be a receipt acknowledging payment of money. Therefore, the alleged forged ‘Solenama’ comes within the ambit of section 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since no complaint in writing has been made by a competent Court as per the provision so enumerated in Clause c of Section 195(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 we have no option but to interfere with the instant proceedings invoking our inherent jurisdiction under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure
965
Salil Kumar Bongopadhay and another v. Abdul Karim and others
Disposed of
966
M/S Garden Bistro Vs Government of Bangladesh
Rule Discharged
967
M/s. Hotel Fortune Garden Vs Government of Bangladesh
Rule Discharged
968
Hotel Metro International and Metro Restaurant Vs Government of Bangladesh
Rule Discharged
969
Rainbow Guest House Vs Government of Bangladesh
Rule Discharged
970
Hotel anurag Vs Government of Bangladesh
Rule Discharged
971
972
973
974
Hotel Supreme and Exotica Restaurant Vs Government of Bangladesh
Rule Discharged
975
976
977
Mosammat Monowara Begum and others ......petitioners -Versus- Abul Hossain and others ......opposite parties Mr. Md. Humayun Kabir with Ms. Tasmin Akhter, Advocates ...... for the petitioners Ms. Preyanka Mohalder, Advocate ...... for opposite party 2
In the order the appellate Court passed on 05.11.2019, it is found that the instant petitioners filed an application therein under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for amendment of the plaint which was neither allowed nor rejected expressly but the next date of the appeal was fixed for delivery of judgment. I have perused the application for amendment of the plaint and the relevant order of the appellate Court. It appears that the District Judge heard the application on 05.11.2019 but fixed next date of the appeal to 21.11.2019 for delivery of the judgment which means that it virtually rejected the application for amendment of plaint. Though, it was the duty of the appellate Court to pass a speaking order on the application but he did not do so. Even the application for amendment of plaint was allowed by the appellate Court, the present suit for declaration of title would have been turned into a suit for declaration of title and partition, because the word- “Ges ev`xc‡¶i `vweK„Z D³ m¤úwË m¤ú‡K© e›U‡bi wWwµ cvBevi Av‡e`b” would have been inserted after the word “ivqwZ ¯^Ë¡ _vKv g‡g© †Nvlbvg~jK wWwµ w`evi”| (emphasis supplied). In that case also the plaintiffs had to prove their title in the suit land which they filed. If the application for amendment of the plaint had been allowed and the suit was turned into a suit for declaration of title with partition, the result of it would have been the same for want of proving title in the suit land. Since the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title and possession in the suit land, the trial Court correctly dismissed the suit which has been affirmed by the appellate Court. I find no error in the impugned judgments for which those may be interfered with by this Court in revision. Therefore, the Rule is discharged without any order as to costs. The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is hereby affirmed. The order of status quo stands vacated.
978
Alhaj Azam Khan-Vs-Md. Yousuf Khan and others
979
Hajee Md. Azad Khan-Vs-Md. Abdul Hannan being dead his heirs; 1(a) Khodeza Begum and others
980
Md. Shahjahan Osta and others-Vs-Rafique Khalifa and others
981
Samuda Real Estate Limited, represented by its authorized attorney Md. Sobuj, son of Abdul Mottaleb and Fokhrunnessa of Tk Bhabon, 10th Floor, 13, Kawran Bazar, Tejgaon, Dhaka-Vs-Sujauddaula and others
982
Md. Mostafijar Rahman @ Md. Mostafizur Rahman-Vs-Md. Nur Mohammad Mandal and others
983
Mahmudul Abedin and others. ……. Petitioners. Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others. .Respondents.
984
Md. Maksudur Rahman and another. ……. Petitioners. Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Bangladesh Secretariat Building, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others. …Respondents.
985
Bilkis Nessa and others Vs Mosammat Parveen Akter and others
986
Md. Zulhas Chowdhury alias Pagla Miah and others Vs Md. Zahedul Hossain and others
987
Zillur Rahman and others VS Bangladesh and others
• “Prisoner under death sentence” means “prisoner under executable death sentence”. Therefore, except in exceptional circumstances, they cannot be kept in condemned cell until the entire legal and constitutional remedies are exhausted. Till then, such prisoners should be given all facilities available in jail as are given to other prisoners.
• Such prisoners are entitled to move bail applications before the High Court Division and/or Appellate Division of the Supreme Court pending their appeals, and the said Court should dispose of such applications on merit.
• The Jail Authority and the Supreme Court Registry are duty bound to provide all information regarding such prisoners and/or death references/appeals involving them.
988
Batalian Commander 12, Border Guard Bangladesh, BGB, Sarail, Kalikachcha, Brahmanbaria and others VS Bir Muktijoddha Abdul Hamid and others
989
Ananda Mohan Sardar and others VS Jadab Chandra Sardar and others
990
Md. Jasim Uddin Chowhdury vs the State
991
Anwar Hosain and others Vs. The State
992
Md. Abdur Rashid Vs. The State
993
Nur Kamal Vs. The State
994
Moulavi Saber Hossain Vs. The State
995
Md. Mahmud Hassan Rajib Vs. The State
996
Md. Abul Bashar and others Vs. The State
997
Saikat Ahmmed Vs. The State
998
Md. Ibrahim @ Arman Vs. The State
999
Kamal Miah Vs. The State
1000
Omar Faruk Vs. The State
This Site is Visited :