Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Prof. Dr. Ali Zaheer Al-Amin and others. - Versus - Impulse Health Services and Research Centre Limited and others
Constitutes an independent Interim Board of Directors.
2
Md. Abdul Malek being dead his legal heirs Md. Monjur Morshed and others. -Versus- Jessore Plastic Industries Limited and others
Allowed.
3
Md. Shafiqul Islam and others. -VERSUS- Nigom Builders Limited and others
Disposed of.
4
Mrs. Afroza Zaman and others. -VERSUS- Alhaj Mohammad Rubiul Islam and others
Dismissed.
5
Kochan Management Inc. (KMI) -Versus- AIIM Ventures Limited (AVL) and others
Allowed in part (Modification).
6
Muiz Khan (Ronnie) alias Ronnie Abdul Muiez. -VERSUS- The Registrar, Joint Stock Companies and Firms (RJSC) and others.
Dismissed.
7
Mr. Abul Kalam Azad and another. -Versus- Neptune Land Development Ltd. and others.
This Court, therefore, holds that for the purpose of maintaining an application under section 233 of the Companies Act, 1994, the qualifying requirement prescribed in section 195(a) must be satisfied by the applicants in their own capacity as registered members of the company. Shares standing in the name of a separate corporate entity cannot be treated as the shareholding of its individual shareholders. An indirect or derivative economic interest arising through shareholding in a corporate shareholder does not confer membership within the meaning of the Companies Act and cannot be reckoned towards the statutory threshold under section 195(a).
8
Ali Haider Ratan and another, -Versus - Khudeja Bhumukhi Farm Ltd., and others.
The materials on record disclose that respondent No. 3 admittedly executed a Power of Attorney before the Bangladesh Consulate in London on 19.10.2010 authorising respondent No. 2 to deal with matters relating to the Company, including her shareholding. Significantly, respondent No. 3 herself has produced before this Court a subsequent deed purporting to revoke the said Power of Attorney. In the ordinary course of law, a revocation necessarily presupposes the existence of a valid authority. Thus, the very reliance placed by respondent No. 3 upon the deed of revocation constitutes an admission that such authority had indeed been created.
9
South Express Limited. -Versus- Madina Enterprise and another
This court is of the view that since the respondents admittedly received notice of the arbitral proceedings, failed to appoint their arbitrator within the stipulated time, participated through solicitors without challenging the tribunal`s jurisdiction before the competent English court, and since no ground under section 46 of the Arbitration Act, 2001 was established, the learned District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by reappraising the merits of the award, holding that the arbitrator committed errors of fact and law, and purporting to set aside the foreign arbitral award. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and the Award is entitled to recognition and enforcement under section 45 of the Arbitration Act, 2001.
10
SVC Jhilmil Residential BD Limited . -Versus- Rajdhani Unnayan Kartipakkha (RAJUK), represented by its Chairman, RAJUK Bhaban, RAJUK Avenue, Dhaka 1000 and others.
Differing, with the greatest respect, from the larger bench decision in Accom, this court is unable to subscribe to the reasoning adopted therein. In the considered view of this court, sections 7, 7A and 10 of the Arbitration Act, 2001 are capable of operating in aid of arbitral proceedings even where the juridical seat of arbitration is outside Bangladesh. Properly construed, these provisions are intended to facilitate and support the arbitral process by conferring limited judicial assistance, rather than by exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings themselves. Consequently, the invocation of section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in place of section 10 of the Arbitration Act, 2001, as adopted in Accom, appears both unnecessary and unwarranted.
11
Bangladesh Textile Mills Association (BTMA). -Versus- Chan Chao International Co. Ltd. and others.
Arbitration Appllication Nos. 36/2025 and 44/2025 -dismissed; Arbitration Application No. 45/2025 -Allowed.
12
Mohammad Quyaum and another. -Versus- National Drug Co. Limited and others.
Allowed in part.
13
The State.-Versus- Md. Alamgir Hossain and others
Rejected
14
A.M. Mahmudur Rahman. -VERSUS- Uttara Club Limited and others.
Dismissed
15
Shaila Shelley Khan and others. -VERSUS- Premier Bank PLC and others.
Disposed of.
16
Md. Shahidullah and others. -VERSUS- Md. Monir Hossain and others.
Dismissed
17
Mercantile Insurance Company Limited. -Versus- The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others.
Dismissed
18
Mrs. Shamsun Nahar and others. -VERSUS - Packstone Limited and others.
Dismissed.
19
Mosmmat. Morium Begum. -VERSUS - Marine Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. and others.
Disposed of.
20
Transcom Beverage Limited, represented by its Managing Director. -Versus- TFG International S.r.l., represented by its President Mr. Daniele Pezzani, of Via Cavallotti, 21- 31015 Conegliano (TV) - Italy and others
Disposed of.
21
Md. Irshad Karim and anohter. -Versus- Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and Frims and others.
Disposed of.
22
Md. Saiful Islam. -Vs - Safina Park Ltd. and others.
Disposed of.
23
Md. Umar Ali Mollah and another. -Versus- Haji Ahmed Ali.
Discharged.
24
Salahuddin Ahmed and another. -Versus- Hasina Bewa being dead her heirs Md. Wahiduzzaman and others
Absolute
25
Mst. Amina Khatun and others. -Versus- Union Bhumi Shahakari Karmakarta and others
Discharged
26
Md. Emrul Hassan vs Govt. and others
27
Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh and another vs Govt. and others
28
Luxman Chandra Shil being dead his heirs Pankaj Chandra Shil and others. -Versus- Jamuna Rani Sarker and others
Discharged.
29
Tapon Kumar Saha and others -Versus- Zudishtir Saha
Discharged.
30
Most. Mahfuza Begum -Versus- Mosa. Rezia Begum and others.
Discharged.
31
Md. Soaib Mollah and others. -Versus- Safayet Hossain and others
Discharged.
32
Md. Amir Ali -Versus- Md. Abdul Aziz and anohter.
Disposed of.
33
Md. Amir Ali and others. -Versus- Md. Shamsuzzaman and others.
Discharged.
34
Save the Children. -Versus- Padakhep Manabik Unnayan Kendra.
Dismissed
35
Lutfa Begum and others. -Versus- Most. Fozila Khatun Nesa and others.
Disposed of
36
Foyjul Haque Bhuiyan. -Versus- Md. Khorshed Alam Mallik (Tulu Mallik) and others
Discharged
37
Firoja Begum and others-Versus- Abu Motaleb being dead his legal heirs Begum Kulsum Akter and others
Absolute in part.
38
The State. -Versus- Md. Abdul Motin
Rejected
39
The State.-Versus- Md. Abdul Kuddus
Rejected
40
The State. -Versus- Md. Atiar Rahman (absconding).
Rejected
41
The State. -Versus- Md. Mokhlesur Rahman
Rejected
42
The State. -Versus- Md. Kamrul Islam.
Rejected
43
The State -Versus- Selina Akter (Absconding) and another
Rejected; the sentence of death is commuted to imprisonment for life.
44
Md. Amzad Hossain alias Amzad Ali, -Versus- Md. Rafiqul Islam and others.
Discharged
45
Samir Uddin. -Versus- Anowar Ali and others.
46
Gopal Chandra Debnath. -Versus- Rakhal Chandra Debnath being dead his legal heirs Raton Dev Nath and others.
Discharged
47
Md. Khairul Islam Lebu. -Versus- Mrs. Rupali Akter Rupa and another.
Discharged
48
Md. Ismail, being dead his legal heirs: 1.(Kha) Abdul Mabud and another. -Versus- Omar Khair, being dead his legal heirs: 1(a) Nurul Alam and others.
Discharged
49
Md. Mofazzal Hossain.-Versus- Md. Monirul Islam
Discharged
50
Md. Abdul Halim Miah. -Versus- Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, being represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Faridpur, Police-Station and District-Faridpur.
Discharged