Case Number Parties Short Description
Mahmudul Abedin and others. ……. Petitioners. Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others. .Respondents.
Md. Maksudur Rahman and another. ……. Petitioners. Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Bangladesh Secretariat Building, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others. …Respondents.
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.
Md. Abdus Sattar. …. Defendant No.2-Appellant. Vs. Md. Tamser Ali Mondal and others. .... Respondents.
Shahajadpur Pourashava, Shahajadpur, Sirajgonj, …. Defendant-Appellant. Vs. Association of the owners of Warehouse Wholesaler, Shajadpur Cloth Market, and others. ............... Respondents.
Shah Cement Industries Ltd., and others. ……. Defendant-Appellants. Vs. Md. Golam Mostafa and others. .............. Respondents.
Nazir Ahammad died his legal heirs Most. Rezia Begum and others. ……. Defendant-Appellants. Vs. Md. Anwar Hossain and others. ............... Respondents.
Md. Anisur Rahman Akand and another. . Petitioners. Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh and others. …Respondents.
Sonali Bank Limited, Ramna Corporate Branch. …. Appellant. Vs. Md. Hassan Khaled and others. …….. Respondents.
Sonali Bank Limited, Ramna Corporate Branch. …. Appellant. Vs. Md. Hassan Khaled and others. …….. Respondents.
The State Vs. Md. Abul Kalam (Absconding). ...Condemned-Convict.
Unnayan Shahojogy Team (UST) vs Bangladesh and others
Md. Saiful Islam Rari vs Government of Bangladesh and others
Md. Shafiqul Islam vs Government of Bangladesh and others
Md. Helaluddin and others vs The Government of Bangladesh and others
Shamsul Haque (Ex Senior Officer, Pubali Bank Limited. ... Petitioner. Vs. S.M. Mahbubullah and others. .Opposite Parties.
Md. Anowar Hossain Mian being dead his legal heirs Md. Azad Rahman and others. …. Defendant-Appellants. Vs. Md. Mahbubur Rahman Khan being dead his legal heirs Md. Mahmudul Hasan Khan and others. .. Respondents.
Mst. Zahanara Begum vs Bangladesh and others
Md. Shariful Islam vs. Government of Bangladesh and others
Md. Abdul Jalil and others vs. Government of Bangladesh and others
Md. Solaiman vs. Government of Bangladesh and others
Md. Naon Hasan and others vs. Bangladesh and others
Md. Kalu Mia vs. Bangladesh and others
Bandana Rani Das vs Government of Bangladesh and others
Md. Niajul Islam Khan vs Government of the People`s Republic of Bangladesh and others
Md. Mehedi Hasan Vs. The Government of Bangladesh, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Shahbag, Dhaka-1000 and others.
Chowdhury Anowar Reza @ Washington Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others.
Md. Foysal Alam Abul ... Petitioner. Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others. …Respondents. and Md. Kamrul Islam ……. Petitioner. Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others. ..Respondents.
Asiful Abdullah Yussuf ……. Petitioner. Vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Public Safety Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Abdul Goni Road Dhaka and others. …Respondents.
The State Vs. Md. Lavlu
Separate sentencing hearing
• Separate sentencing hearing by a trial judge is a must in view of the intention of the Legislature as inherent in sub-section (5) of Section 367 of the Cr.PC and as indicated by our Appellate Division in Ataur Mridha Case, 73 DLR(AD)-298.
• The Registrar General of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh is directed to issue a circular in this regard.
রাষ্ট্র বনাম আব্দুল্লাহ ওরফে তিতুমীর ওরফে তিতু
স্ত্রী হত্যা ও ঋণাত্মক দায়ঃ
  • ঘটনার সময় স্ত্রী তার স্বামীর হেফাজতে ছিল অর্থাৎ স্বামীর উপস্থিতি প্রমাণিত না হলে সচরাচর প্রচলিত সাক্ষ্য আইনের ১০৬ ধারার ঋণাত্মক দায় নীতিটি স্বামীর উপর প্রযোজ্য হবে না। সেক্ষেত্রে রাষ্ট্রপক্ষকে যুক্তিসঙ্গত সন্দেহের ঊর্ধ্বে প্রমাণ করতে হবে যে- (১) স্ত্রী হত্যাকান্ডের শিকার হয়েছে এবং (২) তা স্বামীর দ্বারা সংঘটিত হয়েছে।
সুরতহাল প্রতিবেদনের তথ্য/বক্তব্যঃ
  • সংশ্লিষ্ট সাক্ষীগণ আদালতে বক্তব্য দিয়ে সমর্থন না করলে সুরতহাল প্রতিবেদনের বক্তব্য/তথ্য সাক্ষ্য হিসাবে গৃহীত হবে না।
  • উক্ত প্রতিবেদনে উল্লেখিত শোনা বা ধারণাপ্রসূত বক্তব্য ফৌজদারী কার্যবিধির ১৬২ ধারা এবং সাক্ষ্য আইনের ৬০ ধারা দ্বারা সাক্ষ্য হিসাবে বারিত হবে।
A reference under Section 113 read with Order XLVI rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Civil reference to High Court Division (Section 113, Order XLVI rule 1 CPC):
• CHT Regulation No. 1 of 1900 is a colonial special law which provides restricted operation of other laws in CHT area.
• Separate judicial system in CHT area cannot be termed as contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, particularly after the Peace Accord being signed between CHT National Committee and Janosonghoti Samity.
• Unlike the civil courts in rest of the country, the civil courts in CHT area have not been established under Civil Courts Act, 1887. Rather they have been established under Regulation No.1 of 1900, as amended by Act No. 38 of 2003.
• The civil appeals and the proceedings of civil nature, as was pending before the Divisional Commissioner and Additional Commissioner of Chattogram before coming into force of the amending Act of 2003, shall not be transferred to the District Judges of the respective hill districts. The District Judges and Additional District judges of the respective hill districts do not have jurisdiction to dispose of any such transferred appeal. However, matters disposed of already, shall be treated as ‘Past and Closed’ matters and cannot be questioned on the point of jurisdiction.
The State Vs. Md. Abdus Salam Sheikh and two others
Failure to comply with Section 342 Cr.PC:
• Failure to comply with Section 342 of the Cr.PC may be cured by the Appellate Court during appeal hearing and as such the Appellate Court may further examine the convict, or the counsel appearing for the convict, and the answers to be given by the convict and/or counsel may be taken into consideration.
• The Appellate Court should not remit the matter to the trial Court for reexamination under Section 342 on account of long time already spent by the accused during trial and after his sentence.
• The State or any parties to a criminal case, including victim, should not suffer because of the mistake of the trial judge in complying with the provisions under Section 342 of the Cr.PC.
The State Vs. Md. Obaidul Islam @ Uzzal Sheikh
Accused of unsound mind:
• An accused of unsound mind must be examined by the Civil surgeon during enquiry or trial to determine the extent of unsoundness and provisions under Chapter XXXIV of Cr.PC and relevant provisions of Mental Health Act, 2018 are mandatory in nature.
• Although the accused is acquitted on the ground of his mental health, he should be detained under the supervision of Mental Health Review and Monitoring Committee of the District concerned until it is found that he is no more a threat to himself and the society.
The State Vs. Most. Rahela Khatun
Examination under Section 342 Cr.PC:
• The trial Judge may put questions to the accused during examination under Section 342. But answers given by the accused to such questions cannot be used as evidence to base his conviction for the very reason that such answer of the accused is not given on oath and that the accused cannot be cross-examined unless and until he desires to give evidence in support of the defence case and that such answers are not evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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;
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.
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.
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.
Mirza Abbas VS The State and another
Shirajul Islam Mollah and another Vs. Bangladesh Bank and others
A decision per-incurium is not a binding precedent.
When the Suit itself is barred by law, malafide can not be examined.
আব্দুল লতিফ বনাম মোহাম্মদ কামাল উদ্দীন এবং অন্যান্য
দালিলিক স্বাক্ষ্য গ্রহণ, চিহ্নিত করন, সাক্ষ্য মূল্য ইত্যাদি।
দেওয়ানী মামলা প্রমানের মানদন্ড।
Abdul Mazid Talukder and others Vs. Abdul Kader and others
Evidentiary value of Pantograph prepared by Survey- expert.
A A M Ziaur Rahman Vs. Bangladesh and others
Direction given to conduct trial of all cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 only by the Courts of Joint Sessions Judges.