Search Options
Judgment Search By Title
No
transfer can be registered without a proper instrument of transfer and
share certificate and the company will be perfectly justified to refuse
registration of purchaser’s name on the ground of non-production of the
share certificate particularly when the company was unable to waive
their production.
In a case where a private limited company is a family company it is not at all necessary to produce the script. Here in this case the respondent no 3, brother of respondent no. 2, was holding the aforesaid 1300 shares. It is not at all necessary to produce the same before the respondent No. 2, the Managing Director, because of the fact that he knew about that aforesaid 1300 shares of his own brother as the same were kept in the same office of the company of which two brothers are in fact the owners. In such a case non production of scripts will not debar the transferee from getting his name registered in the company as its share holder.
When there is no dispute as to a person being, or having ceased to be a member, the summary jurisdiction under this section to compel the company to perform the ministerial duty of entering the fact on the register is clear.
If
a dispute can not be resolved without resorting to any other means
excepting the papers and documents filed before the court, in that case
the question may arise whether such an application will be maintainable
or not. In the present case the papers and documents filed by the
parties are sufficient to settle the dispute and the rights and
liabilities of the parties concerned. The papers and documents and the
annexures with the application as well as the affidavits of the parties
are quite clear to settle the rights of the parties. ....... (12, 15,
17)
Dr. Md. Abdul Baten Vs. State, 1990, 19 CLC (HCD)
The power of the Appellate Division to pass an order for re-delivery of possession to the person acquitted on appeal must be an express power. Surprisingly no such power is reflected in this order either in section 522 or in any other section of Cr. PC. the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not passed any order for re-delivery of possession of the disputed land to the informant petitioner. He has acquitted accused Idris Ali Dewan of the charge under section 447 of the Penal Code and also set aside the order of the learned Magistrate directing restoration of possession of the disputed land by the accused to the informant petitioner but no order was passed by the Appellate Court for giving re-delivery of possession of the disputed land. .......... (4)
Criminal revision case will not lie particulary when the proceeding relates to the restoration of possession of land in dispute under section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner being an heir of the deceased and having been also authorised by power of attorney executed by all the remaining heir of the deceased will be seriously prejudiced if she is not allowed to proceed with the revisional application on the death of her husband and to secure the ends of justice she may be substituted in place of the deceased petitioner so as to enable her to proceed with the revision case.
There is no law prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 prohibiting or restricting the heirs of the deceased complainant to be substituted in his place at the appellate or revisional stage and, furthermore, the law relating to abatement is not applicable in criminal cases.
According to the provision of section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the question of abatement of appeal arises in the event of death of the accused during the pendency of appeal arising out of a case where the sentence awarded is imprisonment only and not in cases where the sentence of fine only or with fine is awarded. Anwar Hossain Khan Vs. The State 22 DLR 244. ....... (5)
Where an accused has appealed against the sentence of imprisonment and fine and before the appeal comes for hearing he dies, that part of the appeal which relates to the sentence of imprisonment shall abate on the death of the appellant but the part which related to the sentence of fine shall not abate on the death of the appellant.
Supported by the case reported in AIR 1957 All 20, 58 Cr LJ 16 and AIR 1962 (Mysore)275 where an accused has appealed against the sentence of imprisonment and fine and before the appeals for hearing he dies, that part of the appeal which relates to the sentence of imprisonment shall abate on the death of the apellant but the other part which related to the sentence of fine shall not abate on the death of the appellant. Supported by the case AIR 1957 A11 20, 58 Cr LJ 16 [J16 and AIR 1962 (Mysore) 275.
The principle on which hearing a proceeding is allowed to continue after the death of the accused appears to be that the sentence of fine may affect the properties falling in the hands of the legal representatives of the accused and in such circumstances the legal representatives of the accused may be interested in proceeding with the appeal to protect their interest.
Indu Kuri Suryanarayana Raju and other Vs. Indu Kuri Viswanadharaju and other AIR 1942.
Where after filing the revision petition against and order under sec. 145(7) before the High Court he petitioner dies, the High Court in view of the provisions of SS. 561A and 435 has ample power to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record if the ends of justice requires it.
A petition for the revision of an order directing the petitioner to pay compensation under section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not abate on the death of the petitioner. The object of laying down the above principle obviously was to prevent the estate of a deceased person being damaged although death had terminated the personal interest of the convict in the appeal.......... (6)
The decisions already referred to relate the interest of the heirs of the deceased accused and continuation of the appeal or revision case has itself barred under section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the conviction with sentence of imprisonment only but in the said section which is an exception to the rule has been made in respect of the sentence of fine on the conception that it may affect the interest of heirs of the deceased accused........... (7)
As the criminal case and the appeals and revisions at the instance of the complainant arising out of the order passed by the Trial Court does not abate on the death of the complainant and that there is no bar under the criminal law in bringing the heirs and death occurs during the pendency of the appeal or revision, as the case may be...............(8)
The conception of substitution of the heirs on the death of the parties which is available in the civil suits and proceeding under the Code of Civil Procedure can not be followed in criminal cases as there is no such specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure......... (10)
A court can not and shall not alter or review its judgment after it has been signed save and except correcting clerical mistake........ (12)
After the judgment and order has signed by one Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal appeal arising out of the order of conviction and sentence passed in a case where the order for restoration of possession passed by the Court by law has set aside but no order for re-restoration of possession has orderdered, another Additional Session Judge having revisional jurisdiction is not competent to alter or vary the previous order over the same matter particularly when the finality has reached by an order of the High Court in a criminal revision, which arose out of the same case.......... (14)
Under section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a finality has been attached to the judgment already delivered and signed and it has been clearly laid down that no Court which has signed its judgment shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical error. Md. Adiluddin Vs. Md. Adiluddin Vs. Md. Adiluddin Sheikh and others 33 DLR 88 cited.
Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure says that the order for restoration may be made by the Trial Court when the convicting the persons dispossessing the complainant or at any time within one month from the order of conviction. Any order of restoration passed beyond 30 days of the order of conviction is, on the face of it, without jurisdiction, being beyond the time specified in the section. Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass order of restoration after the expiry of 30 days from the date of the conviction. 38 Cr LJ 981 cited.
The order of resptoration of property may be made by the higher courts in appeal or revision in view of sub-section (3) of 522 of the Court of Criminal Procedure while setting aside the conviction and sentence of the accused on appeal or revision and also setting aside the order for restoration of property to the complainant.......(20)
The provision of section 522 of the Code after the disposal of the appeal and the revision application arising thereof can not be made available to the accused persons by filing separate application to the Trial Court....... (20)
The petitioner can not avail the scope of section 561 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to assail the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed in revisional application filed under section 437A of the Code because the present application under section 439 Cr. P.C. which has become barred by the insertion of sub-section (4) in section 439 of the Code. It is true that the party being aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge in a revision case filed under section 439 A of the Code is barred from agitating the point before the High Court under section 439 of the Code but it is not found that the power of the High Court Division has been restricted by any clause of section 439 or by any law if it is considered necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Supported by the case of Khalilur Rahman Vs. State 41 DLR 385.
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 561A has given very wide power to the High Court. The power under section 561A is analogous to the power exercised in issuing writ of certiorari for the Magistrate either commits illegality or acts entirely without jurisdiction Mokhdoont Hossain Vs. Dr. Wahed Ali PLD 1961 (Karachi) 432…....... (21)
Sharif (Mohd) Vs. Mohd Obaidur Rahman & others, 1990, 19 CLC (HCD)
It
is a well settled principle of criminal trial that case and
counter-case over the self-same occurrence are to be tried by the same
court in accordance with law one after another and the judgment is to be
pronounced in both the cases on the same date by the same Magistrate so
that there is no conflicting decision and the parties are not
prejudiced and the trying Magistrate also keeps the cases of both
parties in his mind.
The
procedure for trial of counter-cases by the same court is founded on a
sound principle of criminal trials, Trial of cross-cases which arise
from the same incident, by the same court to enable it to better
appreciate the evidence and circumstances which are described by parties
in conflicting manner. By such trial the Court gets both sides on the
pictures and arrives at correct decision avoiding conflicting findings
which are likely to occur if separate court hold the trials. Though no
express provision of law requires trial of cross-cases by the same court
practice and experience of over a century dictate such trial for
arriving at correct determination of disputed facts. This is all the
more necessary to save the accused from being prejudiced in their
defence………………………… (4)
Bijoy Kumar Basak Vs. Narendra Nath Datta & others, 1990, 19 CLC (HCD)
A
lawyer should be very vigilant and diligent in drafting applications
particularly application for transfer of suits alleging bias of a judge.
AIR 1963 (Pat) 353 and PLD 1955 PC 185 cited.......... (7)
District Judge should not and shall not allow the application for transfer of a suit which is biased without giving specific finding......... (9)
Power
of the District Court under section 24 CPC is somewhat of an
administrative nature and also discretionary and in suitable cases the
District Judge can even suo moto exercise this power in the interest of
justice......... (10)
Manindra Kumar Malakar Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & others, 1989, 18 CLC (HCD)
In
the present case it has been categorically found by the Special
Tribunal that at the time of occurrence that is in 1986 the detenu was
aged in between 16 and 17 years. Since the Tribunal found her age in
between 16 to 17 years at the relevant time, she was major under section
361 of the Penal Code and as such she should not be handed over to her
father………………….(9)
The horoscope of the detenu speaks that she was born on 29th of Agrahayan, 1379BS. But the said horoscope was made on a plain paper without any signature of its maker. Moreover, it is a private document which may be created at any time for any special purpose. It is very difficult to rely on such a private document which can be created at any time for some ulterior purpose. Even in the application there is no averment as to when and by whom such horoscope was prepared. ....... (10)
The Headmaster of Chapair (West) Primary School gave a certificate regarding the age of the detenu, which has been given on a plain paper but not on any school pad. No date of birth of the girl was given there, it is very difficult to rely on the alleged certificate. ....... (11)
In this case the petitioner has totally failed to prove by adducing any independent and reliable evidence that his daughter (detenu) was minor at the relevant time excepting his statement…………………..(15)
In a habeas corpus case like the present one their Lordships were of the view that if the age of the victim girl is not found less than 16 years, then father/ guardian will not be entitled to claim her guardianship and the girl will be treated as major and she will be allowed to go anywhere she likes.
The decision in Jahanara Begum alias Joisna Rani Saha and another Vs. The State, 15 DLR (Dhaka) 148 has got full application in the facts and circumstances of this case. ............(18)
For the purpose of section 366A, minority of the girl should be counted from 16 to 18 years that means the girl must not be less than 16 and must not be more than 18. So, if the girl is aged 16 years or above at the time of occurrence, the ingredients of section 361 of the Penal Code can not be attracted and as such the petitioner can not claim custody of the girl as she was above 16 at the relevant time......... (20)
At
the time of occurrence if the detenu was a minor, but after three years
from the date of occurrence, if the girl is found major, then court has
no jurisdiction to compel the major girl to go with her father. There
is much force in the contention. ........ (23)
Nazir Ahmed and others Vs. Md. Hazee Kalu, 1989, 18 CLC (HCD)
Sree Birendra Nath Singh and others Vs. Md. Mokbul Shah and others, 1989, 18 CLC (HCD)
Non-exercise of discretion – an error of law
The amendment sought for ought to have been allowed by the Trial Court inasmuch as amendment is necessary for determining the real issue under controversy between the parties and that the amendment sought for does not involve setting up of a new case and in view of this matter the learned Munsif committed an error of law in not exercising his discretion on judicial principle. .................. (5)
Explanation of facts and circumstances and delay
Delay, facts and circumstances shall be explained
For admission in evidence any document, delay and facts and circumstances of the case shall be explained.
Kanda and ors. Vs. Waghu 3DLR 311- a decision of the Privy Council which was relied on………….. (6)
Admission into evidence of an registered document falls within the scope of Order 7 rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The policy underlying this legal provision is to exclude evidence the existence of which at the date of the suit is doubtful and as to the genuineness of which suspicion may arise because it was produced at the late stage of the suit……………. (7 & 8)
Court’s wide discretion in receiving documents
Court
enjoys wide discretion with regard to the reception of document which
was not produced with plaint, if there is no doubt about the genuineness
of the document produced. The Court may also reject the document where
party does not explain adequately any inordinate delay in producing
it….…....... (9)
Mojibur Rahman (Md.) and others Vs. State, 2012, 41 CLC (HCD)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; Section 561A
Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007, Rule 10
To secure justice, it is essential that a complete investigation is carried out by the Investigation Officer (IO) -
The
investigation conducted by the IO was incomplete and contradictory. The
two vital issues of the case were - a) the authenticity of the surplus
status of the 11 accused petitioners and b) whether the signature on the
third nomination letter was a forgery…..............(24)
The IO failed to examine
sufficiently the relevant persons and documents pertaining to the
principle legal issues of the case prior to submitting his investigation
report, and therefore further investigation should be directed for
ascertaining the status of the accused petitioners as well as the
legality of their nominations for absorption by the Ministry of
Establishment…(28b). The cognizance order and the charge framing order
are therefore set aside for enabling further investigation, however the
quashment of the proceedings is not called for, due to the allegations
of creation of false documents...............(27)
Inspector, Railway Nirapatta Bahini, Bangladesh Railway, Khulna and others Vs. Sohrab Ali, 1989, 18 CLC (HCD)
Priority of determination of issues of law
Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, the Court is of opinion that a case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined. 30 DLR(SC) 30 cited. ......... (7)
Determination of issues of law, foremost concern of the court
If any court resolves that a case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issue of law only, then it shall try that issue first and for that purpose it may even postpone the settlement of the issues of fact till determination of the issue or issues of law. The provision appears to be obligatory....... (8)
Austerity in time and expenses of the parties
The main purpose behind this legislation is to save time and expenses of the parties in the disposal of the suit. ........ (8)
Time for pronouncement of judgment discretionary any not mandatory
When issues have been framed both of law and facts and the Court is satisfied that no further argument or evidence that the parties can at once adduce is required upon such of the issues as may be sufficient for the decision of the suit and no injustice will result from the such proceeding with the suit forthwith, the Court may proceed to determine such issues and if the finding thereon is sufficient for the decision, may pronounce judgment accordingly. In DLR 30(SC) page 30 this views have been expressed by their Lordships. ................. (9)
Piecemeal trial discouraged
The general rule of procedure is that the trial of a suit should not be held piecemeal and in view of the amendment of rule 5 of Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure when issues have been framed, the Court shall give its finding and decision upon each separate issue of law as well as fact....... (10)
Amendment made it mandatory to determine the issues of facts
After the framing of all the issues both of law and fact in the suit, Order 15 rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be applicable and in that case, it is the discretion of the court to decide the issue or issues of law first leaving aside the issues of facts or to decide them all and pronounce judgment thereon. But in view of the amendment of Order 20 rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it appears that it has been enjoined that whatever may be the Trial Court’s view on issue of law it is now mandatory for the Court to try to determine the issues of facts as well. The Trial Court may hear the issue of maintainability as preliminary issue, but it must postpone its judgment till the hearing of the suit on all other issues and thereafter give its findings of the issue of maintainability and on other issues as well.
For the hearing of an issue of law independently as a preliminary one after settlement of all other issues in the suit, is out and out a discretion of the Trial Court. ...... (11)
Determination of all the issues shall precede judgment.
In
view of the amendment of the rule 5 of Order 20 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, it is imperative for Trial Court to decide all the issues and
then deliver the judgment in the suit. Md. Sultan Miah Vs. Sree
Haradhan Saha and others 40 DLR at page 236 supports this decision.
Moynul Hasan and others Vs. Nazmul Haq @ Nazmul Hasan and others, 1989, 18 CLC (HCD)
Without
issuing summons on defendant No.8, not to speak of service of summon
upon him, the compromise decree in question was passed on 27.2.84
dividing the entire properties in the suit amongst the compromising
parties, to the exclusion of the opposite party No.1 (defendant No.8).
This speaks of suppression, even fraud. Studied in the light of the
decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the opposite parties,
limitation was not a material point for decision of the Miscellaneous
Case under Order 9 rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Even
if the discretion exercised by the subordinate Court is not in strict
conformance with law and rules, the discretion would not be interfered
with if it does not occasion failure of justice. In the instant case
restoration of the partition suit for decision in presence of all the
co‑sharers including the present petitioners occasions no failure of
justice…… (8 & 9)
Circle Officer, Sutrapur Vs. Mohammad, 1989, 18 CLC (HCD)
Same privilege of government and citizens for filing appeal for delay condonation
The
law is the same for the Government as well as for the citizens and that
the Government can not enjoy a special privilege in the matter of
condonation of delay in filing appeal……........(8)
Paraphernalia leads Government to longer time for filing appeal for delay condonation
The
statute of limitation makes no distinction between the Government and
the private individual except in certain provisions like Article 149 of
the Limitation Act. But in dealing with an application under section 5
of the Limitation Act the fact remains that a private individual has to
make up his own mind, has to arrange his fund and is normally presumed
to be aware on the facts and aspects of his case while in the case of
the Government, public interest has to be duly considered and
comparatively speaking in the case of the Government in such matter
various authorities, formalities and complications including allocation
of budget and sanction of fund by the relevant Ministry under a
particular head are involved and as such Government requires longer time
in making the decision and then in processing the matter. Bangladesh
Vs. Zahiruddin 1986 BLD (AD) 180 referred......... (9)
Right of appeal – Universal
Ataur Rahman & others Vs. State, 1990, 19 CLC (HCD)
Evidence can not be rejected for discrepancy in detail
Discrepancy in the matter of detail of incident always occurs even in the evidence of truthful witnesses and such variation creeps in because faculties of different individuals differ from each other in the matter of observation, perception and memorisation. They can hardly be the ground for rejecting their evidence when there is a consensus as to the substance of their evidence............................... (20)
Exactitude and consistency of rural and urban witness differ
Consideration of evidence of rural witnesses should not be judged by the same standard of exactitude and consistency as that urban witness. When scanning evidence of various witnesses Court has to inform itself on the fringes discrepancies in detail. Contradiction in narration can not militate against the veracity of the core of the testimony provided that there is an impress of truth and conformity in substantial fabric of the testimony delivered..............(20)
Scrutiny of evidence with utmost caution
Enmity is a double-edged weapon providing motive for offence as well as for false implication. Evidence in such case needs to be scrutinised with care so that guilty person is not wrongly acquitted on the plea of enmity nor innocent person wrongly convicted on that basis....................(21)
Provision of section 509A. Cr. P.C
The post-mortem report is sought to be admitted into evidence on the ground that the doctor left the country and his attendance can not be procured without an amount of delay or inconvenience which under the circumstances of the case would be unreasonable. State Vs. Mokbul Hossain 37 DLR 157 relied. ...................... (23)
Single witness can be the basis of conviction
It is a sound and well established principle of law that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence that matter. There is no impediment in law in conviction being based on the testimony of single witness provided the court should come to the conclusion that his evidence is honest and trustworthy. ............................ (26)
Identification difficult due to insufficient light
In the present case occurrence took place after the evening and there was insufficient light to identify the appellants and therefore doubt arises regarding the participation of the appellants in the crime. ....... (27)
Photographic picturisation not possible
Eye witnesses can not be expected to enumerate photographic picturisation of an attack. Such photographic picturisation of an attack can not be expected from eye witnesses…..................(28)
Aga Kohinoor Alam Vs. State and another, 1990, 19 CLC (HCD)
The
accused petitioner misrepresented to get permission for sale of the
house and mutation and all relevant documents were false, forged and was
available in the office. He, by showing such false documents induced
the purchaser to purchase the house from the accused petitioner at
amount of Taka 12 lakhs and during executing the deed of
agreement an undertaking was also given in writing by the accused
petitioner that in case, the sale document cannot be executed and
registered, he would refund Taka 14 lakhs instead of Taka 12 lakhs and that he did not fulfill the said agreement and contrarily issued a false cheque for Taka 2 lakhs which was dishonoured.
Even
if, following the FIR that there were allegations of offence of
cheating and forgery nevertheless, this Court has no scope to say
whether such allegation was true or false or will be accepted by the
Court or not.
The Settlement Court left the matter of criminal liability open for decision by the appropriate Court. In this situation the Court can not accept the contention that the Settlement Court had given a final decision over all the dispute between the parties and that the criminal Court would have no jurisdiction to go into the dispute as has been raised in the complaint petition nor can accept the contention on behalf of the accused petitioner namely, that the present dispute is wholly a civil dispute.
Since
the complaint petition bears allegations of offence of cheating and
forgery so the criminal proceeding cannot be said to be without any
basis nor the said proceeding can be held to be liable to be
quashed…................ (9-13)
Abdul Momen Bhuiyan Vs. Haji Payez Ali Mia and others, 1990, 19 CLC (HCD)
Local Government (Upazila Parishad and Upazila Administration
Re-organisation) Ordinance, 1982; Section 6(2)g
Local Government (Union Parishad) Ordinance, 1983; Section 7(2)g
Contract Act, [XII of 1872]; Section 62
A
candidate in an election of Union Parishad can be declared disqualified
by the Returning Officer on the ground that he had defaulted in making
payment of certain installments of loan taken from some banks and as
such his nomination can be rejected under section 7(2)g of the Local
Government (Union Parishad) Ordinance, 1983. ....................(12)
Hashem (Md.) Vs. Bangladesh and others, 1990, 19 CLC (HCD)
Nurul Absar Chowdhury and others Vs. Haji Abdul Hoque Sowdagar, 1990, 19 CLC (HCD)
Md. Ismail Siddique Vs. M/s. Crescent Apparels (Private) Ltd. and others, 1990, 19 CLC (HCD)
Annual General Meeting, once a year
According section 81 of the Companies Act every company shall in each year hold in addition to any other meetings a general meeting as its annual general meeting. But no Annual General Meeting of the said Company and those of Board of Directors were held which is apparent from evidence. It is further apparent that no resolution of the meeting of the Board of Director regarding alleged transfer of the shares have been produced before this Court. No audit report was submitted nor any profit and loss nor any dividend were shown given to the petitioner and other……………...... (32)
Partners entitled to know share transfer, accounts
In a partnership if a share is transfered fraudulently and if the accounts of profit and loss had not been shown and given to other partners, the partnership is liable to be dissolved…………………………...... (33)
Principle of partnership applicable to company
It should be mentioned here that the principle of partnership is applicable to private limited company, and the company in question is a private limited company.......(33)
A genuine share holder can only apply for winding up
The petitioner who sold his shares does not enjoy the locus standi to file the application of winding up of the company in question as he sold his shares long before he filed the application for winding up………….......... (34)
Liquidation, consequence of total mismanagement
It
has been proved that the shares of 3 promoter directors (1000 shares
each) were fraudulently transferred. There was total mismanagement in
the matter of profit and loss account, issuance dividend, preparation of
balance sheet and holding of annual general meeting and Board meeting
of the company……………....(35)
Tapan Kumar Mondal Vs. Bangladesh and others, 2014, 43 CLC (HCD)
Whether the petitioner was eligible to be appointed as the Headmaster in any special quota or not
It
is difficult to take any decision as to the nature of handicraft of the
petitioner who has been suffering from but as per the Annexures –“C”
containing “প্রতিবন্ধী নিবন্ধন ও পরিচয় পত্র” as well as the Annexur e-H a
Medical Certificate describing that the petitioner has been suffering
from a disability for “ডান হাতের চারটি আঙ্গুল স্বাভাবিক কাজের অযোগ্য”.
This court cannot take any decision as to the nature of disability or
the physical condition of handicraft. The petitioner applied for the
post of Headmaster in the District of Satkhira while there is no
information by either of the parties to number of candidates with any
physical handicraft disability or whether the respondents have already
sufficient numbers as per the quota for the same post or not….......(10)
Shafiq Ahmed Vs. Chairman, Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation and others, 1992, 21 CLC (HCD)
Shafiuddin Khan (Md) Vs. State and another, 1993, 22 CLC (HCD)