Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Agrani Bank Limited, Nandir Bazar Branch, Post Office: Nandir Bazar, Police Station: Sherpur, District- Sherpur represented by its Manager-Versus- Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat Number 1, Sherpur and others
2
Commissioner of Taxes, Taxes Zone-15, Dhaka-Versus- Jamuna Electronics
3
Anwar Hossain-Vs- Bangladesh, represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others
4
M/S. MITHUN KNITTING AND DYEING (CEPZ) LIMITED-Vs- National Board of Revenue (NBR) and others
5
M/S. Paradise Point Complex and another -Vs- Artha Rin Adalat No. 4, Dhaka and others
7
M/S Bengal Mines Development Corporation Limited-Vs- Commissioner of Customs, Excise and VAT Commissionerate and others
10
M/S Rahman Poly Hanger and Accessories Industries Ltd.-Vs- Customs Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and another
12
13
Commissioner of Taxes, Taxes Zone-15, Dhaka -Versus- Jamuna Electronics
15
Commissioner of Taxes, Taxes Zone-15, Dhaka-Versus- Jamuna Electronics
16
Commissioner of Taxes, Taxes Zone-15, Dhaka-Versus- Jamuna Electronics
17
Anwara Begum and others-Vs- Government, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka-1000 and others
19
Elixir Pharmaceuticals Ltd.-Vs- Commissioner, Customs, Excise and VAT, Dhaka (North)
20
Elixir Pharmaceuticals Ltd. -Vs- Commissioner, Customs, Excise and VAT, Dhaka (North)
21
Mrs. Kohinoor Khan-Vs-Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka
22
H.R. Textile Mills Ltd.-Vs- Commissioner of Taxes, Taxes Zone-07, Dhaka.
23
24
Md. Iftekharul Alam -Vs- National Board of Revenue and others
25
Md. Shahid Ullah -Vs- Brac Bank Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Head Office, Tejgaon, Dhaka and others.
26
Bureau Veritas (BIVAC) Bangladesh Limited vs Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, 10, Dilkusha Commercial Area, Jibon Bima Bhaban, Dhaka and others
27
Bureau Veritas (BIVAC) Bangladesh Limited vs Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, 10, Dilkusha Commercial Area, Jibon Bima Bhaban, Dhaka and others
28
M. A. Hossain vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary (Internal Resources Division), Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh Secretariat, Abdul Gani Road, Police Station-Shahbagh, District-Dhaka and others
29
Md. Hazrat Ali vs Artha Rin Adalat, Mymensingh and others
34
Fuad Yusuf vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others
35
Kohinoor Chemical Company Bangladesh Limited vs Dhaka North City Corporation, represented by its Mayor, Nagar Bhaban, Gulshan Central Road, Plot No. 23-26, Road No. 46, Gulshan2, Dhaka-1212 and others
36
Summit Meghnaghat II Power Company Ltd., Summit Centre, 18, Kawran Bazar Commercial Area, Dhaka-1215, Bangladesh vs Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Revenue Building (10th Floor), Block-C, Plot F 1/A, Agargaon, Sher-E-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka1207 and others
37
Rezia Bibi alias Most. Rezia Khatun Bibi VS Artha Rin Adalat, Bogra
38
Shantinagar Bohumukhi Samabay samity VS Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat Building, Ramna, Dhaka.
39
Lokman Vs Ayub Ali and the State
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 118(a) and 138: Cheque is a negotiable instrument (section 13). In the instant case, the prosecution story as narrated in the petition of complaint and the deposition of the complainant as PW1 sharply contradicts each other as to when the complainant paid the money to the accused against which the cheque was issued to repay the same. The petition of complaint is silent about the date of monetary transaction, but states that the cheque was issued by the accused subsequently. In deposition, the complainant stated that the payment of money and issuance of the cheque took place on the same date which creates a doubt as to passing off consideration to the complainant against which the cheque was issued. Therefore, the presumption under section 118(a) of the Act, 1881 as to consideration has been successfully rebutted by the defence. ...(Para 14) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 9: In my view, the trial Court has correctly found that the complainant is not the holder of the cheque in due course. ...(Para 17)
40
Md. Abdullah Md. Ehtesham Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs , Peoples Republic of bang, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others
41
Liberty Fashion Wears Limited Vs. Bangladesh Accord Foundation and others
42
Osman Gazi Chowdhury VS Artha Rin Adalat, 4th Court, Dhaka and another
Section 41 of the Artharin Ain, 2003:
No writ is maintainable against a decree or post-decree order passed by Artharin Adalats:
It is the clear intention of the Legislature that a party to an Artharin Suit if aggrieved by a decree, must prefer an appeal. Since the Ain, 2003 is a special law with an overriding provision over other laws and has prescribed a special procedure, there is no scope to bypass the appellate forum, if the forum under Section 19(2) of the Ain, 2003 against an exparte decree is already not availed of by the party.
About 10 (ten) years ago, our Apex Court in the case of BADC -Vs-Artharin Adalat 59 DLR(6) urged the learned Advocates of this Court to be susceptive in filing a writ petition against any decree of the Artharin Adalat. But unfortunately the learned members of the Bar are coming up with the said writ petitions indiscriminately and thereby causing wastage of valuable time of this Court which is overwhelmingly overburdened with huge backlog of cases.
Writ is maintainable against a pre-decree order passed by Artharin Adalat. The only exception is that before passing the decree, if a party to an Artharin Suit feels aggrieved by an order, writ jurisdiction may be invoked as has been held in the case Sonali Bank Ltd Vs Asha Tex International 20 BLC 185.
43
Writ Petition 7407/2011