Search Options
Judgment Search By Title
Asadul Hoque, Trading as Samrat Shoe Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks & another, 2004, 33 CLC (HCD)
Raqib Sheikh (Md.) Vs. State, 2005, 34 CLC (HCD)
Abdul Latif Hawlader Vs. Sultan Miah and others, 2005, 34 CLC (HCD)
Ayub Ali Chowdhury Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others, 2004, 33 CLC (HCD)
Service Regulations of the Islamic Foundation
Regulations 43, 44, 45
The enquiry committee conducted its enquiry without following provisions of the concerned regulations or the principle of natural justice as stated above obviously this report has got no legal validity.
Since
it appears that the penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon
the petitioner without following the provisions of the Service
Regulations, specially regulations 43 and 44, and also in violation of
the principle of natural justice, the order imposing the penalty of
compulsory retirement cannot be allowed to stand…......(14-15)
Bangladesh Development Bank Limited Vs.Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Jessore and others, 2013, 42 CLC (HCD)
Syed Raihan Hasan Ali Chowdhury Vs. Syed Hamde Ali Chow¬dhury and others, 2013, 42 CLC (HCD)
Waqf Ordinance, 1962; Section 50
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII, rule 11,
Provisions of waqf ordinance —
Section
50 of the Waqf Ordinance has been inserted in the enrolment chapter.
Specific Provisions have made regarding the person, property, time and
manner in which the enrolment is to be made and in this context section
50 authorises the Administrator to decide the question whether a
particular property is waqf property or not and the order made by the
Administrator under this section is subject to challenge by the District
Judge in the manner as contained in section 35 as all the provisions of
section 35 have been made applicable to an order made under this
section which means that an order made by the Administrator is liable to
challenge before the District Judge and any order made by the District
Judge is appealable to the High Court, whose decision will be the
final………(11)
It
is a well-accepted principle of interpretation that where different
language is used in the same statute different intention is to be
presumed unless there is in the context anything to hold to the
contrary……………..(15)
Appellate Division held that even after filing of written statement application for rejection of the plaint can be filed. Although this is not sound preposition as application for rejection of plaint can be filed at any stage of the suit but when written statement is filed it is to be taken that suit has merit to proceed. It is settled also that application for rejection of plaint is to be filed within earliest opportunity. 'Earliest' do not mean after thought, after filing written statement and after framing of issues. When defendant appeared in the suit, he appeared with the knowledge of plaint case as such defendant having all the knowledge of plaint should decide whether to bury the suit at earliest opportunity, not denying the plaint case and making out a case of real or actual fact. Early means, at or near the beginning of a period……… (17)
Abdul Momen Chowdhury and others Vs. Bangladesh and others, 2005, 34 CLC (HCD)
Rahimuddin Ahmed Vs. Bengal Water Ways Ltd. and another, 1978, 7 CLC (HCD)
Md. Khalilur Rahman Vs. The State, 1977, 6 CLC (HCD)
Manager, Azizuddin Industries Ltd Vs. Abdus Satter and another, 1978, 7 CLC (HCD)
Govt of Bangladesh Vs. The Chairman 2nd Labour Court, Dakha, 1978, 7 CLC (HCD)
Md. Shabjahan and another Vs. Haji Yeaqub Ali Chowdhury and another, 1978, 7 CLC (HCD)
Ali Akbar Pandit & others Vs. Jadu Gopal Shah Bhowmik & others, 1978, 7 CLC (HCD)
Hazi Md. Lliyas Vs. Government of the People's Khan Republic of Bangladesh, 1978, 7 CLC (HCD)
Sukhendu Bikssh De & another Vs. Nurul Islam & others, 1978, 7 CLC
Plaintiff’s right of redemption was extinguished long ago when the mortgaged property was sold in execution of a rent decree
The
mortgagor defaulted to pay the arrear rent and the mortgagee was not
under any obligation either in law or in contract to pay the arrear rent
for which the land was sold out in the execution of a rent decree and
the right of redemption of the mortgagor was extinguished…….(10)
In the present case the plaintiff's equity of redemption was extinguished for his own default to pay arrear rent and there is no evidence to show that the mortgaged property was collusively or fraudulently sold out for any default of the mortgagee………..((10)
The
mortgagee or his heirs had not undertaken any obligation to pay arrear
rent for which the land was sold in a rent sale and there was no
evidence to show that the suit property was sold in the execution of a
rent decrees because of any default or any collusion of the mortgagee or
their heir………….(12)
Giasuddin-al-MamunVs.State and another, 2012, 41 CLC (HCD)
Giasuddin-al-Mamun Vs. State and another, 2013, 42 CLC (HCD)
Rafiqul Islam Mollah (Md.) Vs. State, 2005, 34 CLC (HCD)
Afzal Molla (Md.) Vs. Government of Bangladesh & others, 2005, 34 CLC (HCD)