Search Options

Judgment Search By Title

Displaying 7281-7300 of 8375 results.
Jamiul Hossain Vs. Government of Bangladesh & Others, 2011, 40 CLC (HCD)


Abdul Mannan Khan (Md.) Vs. Bangladesh and others, 2006, 35 CLC (HCD)


State Vs. Saidul and others, 2007, 36 CLC (HCD)


Mokbul Ahmed and others Vs. Ali Ekabbar and others, 1980, 9 CLC (HCD)


Hedayetullah and others Vs. Foyjun Nessa Begum and others, 2012, 41 CLC (AD)


Millennium Holdings Limited Vs. Hilton International Co., 2012, 41 CLC (HCD)


Bangla Phone Limited Vs. Huawei Tech Investment Ltd. and another, 2012, 41 CLC (HCD)


Tashin Ali (Md.) Vs. Md. Shamsul Hoque and others, 2009, 38 CLC (HCD)

In a pre-emption case there is no scope to consider the title of either party. In order to deter­mine the title, the party concerned is required to file a suit for declaration of title. In case the pre-emptor claimed to acquire the property by way of registered deed of Heba-bil-Ewaz from the heirs of the seller, who obtained the suit property through auction in a Rent suit, unless and until the said Rent suit is declared in any Court to be void and illegal, a Court taking the case for pre-emption cannot ignore and deny the existence of Rent suit as well the title and status of the pre-emptor as claimed.....................(12) 


Shahjahan Vs. State, 2011, 40 CLC (HCD)


Renuza Begum and others Vs. Md. Waziullah Mia and others, 2011, 40 CLC (AD)

The Specific Relief Act, 1877 (Act No. I of 1877); section 27 (b)

A plaintiff may seek a decree for specific performance against a subsequent purchaser if he claims title, arising subsequently to the contract but he is not entitled to a decree against a transferee who is a bonafide purchaser without notice to the original contract. Similarly, he is not entitled to a decree for specific performance against a person who has acquired right or interest in respect of the same property prior to the con­tract...............................(15)

Whoever claims or has taken a plea that he is a subsequent purchaser of the property without notice to the previous contract for sale, the onus lies upon him to prove such fact. Mere denial in the written statement that he has no notice of the previous contract will not defeat the decree for specific performance.............................(21)


Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh Vs. Bangladesh and others, 2011, 40 CLC (HCD)


Md. Mozaffor Hossen and another Vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others, 2012, 41 CLC (HCD)


The Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007, Rule 10

Since rule 10 of the Rules, 2007 does not incorporate any consequence as such, for non-compliance of the same with regard to conclusion of investigation within the prescribed period of time cannot be treated as mandatory, rather it is directory. However, in such cases while accepting the police report, if filed beyond the prescribed period of time, the Court is to look into this aspect in order to be satisfied that there was no intentional laches on the part of the Investigating Officer in concluding the investigation within time as has been prescribed by the legislature.  

 


National Securities and Consultant Ltd. Vs. Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission, 2006, 35 CLC (HCD)


Md. Nuruzzaman (Noni) Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others, 2013, 42 CLC (HCD)


S.M. Saiful Hasan Vs. Director General, Bangladesh Sugarcane Research Institute and others, 2010, 39 CLC (HCD)


Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB) Vs. Bangladesh and others, 2012, 41 CLC (HCD)


Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB) Vs. The Mayor, Dhaka City Corporation and others, 2012, 41 CLC (HCD)


Human Right and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB) and another Vs. The Mayor, Dhaka City Corporation and others, 2009, 38 CLC (HCD)


Bangladesh Tobacco Company Limited Vs. Ashoke Kumar Das & others, 2011, 40 CLC (HCD)


Shahidur Rahman Khadem Vs. State and another, 2012, 41 CLC (AD)