The Income Tax Ordinance, 1984  (Ordinance No. XXXVI of 1984)

Section 160

Unless a question of law arises out of the order of the Taxes Appellate Tribunal, this High Court Division has no power to decide the same. But whether a question of law formulated arises out of the order of the tribunal itself and falls for decision of this Division is to be seen by this Division. The questions as formulated to arise out of the order of the Tribunal and are questions of law and call for decision and the reference is competent. ....................(7)

In order to decide whether amount is the income of assessee or not, the true test is whether the amount reached the hand of the assessee. In the case before us the surplus was no doubt to be paid to the Corporation under the direction of the Government and there seems to arise an obligation. But each obligation is not the decisive factor. Where under the obligation the income is diverted to before it reaches the hand of the assessee it is a revenue expenditure and merits deduction. But where the income is applied to discharge the obligation of the assessee after it reaches the assessee it is a revenue expenditure and is not a deductible amount. In the instant case the amount in question was earned due to re‑fixation of price of the stock. The stock of the petroleum products belonged to the assessee and the profit it earned was its profit and is taxable in the hand of the assessee. ....................(9)

As the surplus, in the instant case, did not remain "in one passage of money in the form of one son of income," if even accepted, the same money entered in another passage in another form of income in the hands of the Corporation, the said amount can be taxed twice as payment to the Corporation is its income and the Corporation is a different unit of taxation. As the profit in question was income of the assessee company and on subsequent payment of the same to the Corporation it entered upon a different passage and the Corporation being a separate and distinct unit of assessment from the assessee company the contention of the applicant on double taxation fails. ..................(11) 

Suit Filed By a Representative

Under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure a representative suit can be filed with the permission of the Court. The Court shall in such case give, at the plaintiff's expense, notice of the institution of the suit to all concerned. Absence of a regular permission of the Court renders the proceeding untenable in law……………… (9)

Article 14 of the Limitation Act

Since the 'No objection certificate for the construction of a cinema hall was issued by the Deputy Commissioner under the Cinematograph Rules and it was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs, they were required to file the suit within one year of the said order. Filing of the present suit after about two years of the passing of the impugned order is hit by Article 14 of the Limitation Act…………..(8) 

Grounds of Detention

The Government shall under Section 8(2) of the Special Powers Act 1974 communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu within 15 days from the date of detention of the detenu and the said provision is mandatory.

Section 9. Commencement and termination of time, (1) In any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word 'from' and, for the purpose of including the last i.e. a series of days or any other period of time to use the word 'to'…… (7) 

Tender of pardon to accomplice

The sole purpose of granting pardon to an accused in specified offences is to procure evidence against other accused persons when prosecution is faced with the difficulty of gathering evidence to bring home the charge against them. In the instance case there was no prayer on the part of the prosecution to pardon accused Nurul Islam and to treat him as an accomplice witness. Moreover P.W. 2 did not make full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge as is evident from contradictory statements made by him before the I.O. and the Court below. In such circumstances Court below was not justified to tender pardon to him and to examine him as P.W. 2 without assigning any reason specially when prosecution did not pray for tendering pardon to him……(7) 

The Co-operative Societies Ordinance, 1984; Section 86

Section 86 of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance does not attract election disputes and as such the Arbitrator acted illegally and without jurisdiction in making the impugned award.

Coram Non-Judice

When coramnon-judice clearly strike's the award, non-filing of appeal or withdrawal of appeal after filing does not stand in the way of getting relief in writ jurisdiction….(7) 

Taking Evidence on which Party was in Possession of the Disputed Property—
In a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. it is for the Magistrate to decide upon taking evidence which party was in possession of the disputed property at the time of making the initial order. If the finding of the Magistrate as to possession is based on evidence before him from which he could reasonably come to such a finding. He is the only judge as to whether the materials before him were sufficient or not. The satisfaction of the Magistrate cannot be replaced by the satisfaction of the revisional Court unless the order of the Magistrate is perverse and it has occasioned a miscarriage of justice………….. (19)

Remedy under Section 561A available to a party in an appropriate case —

When the Sessions Judge passed an order setting aside the finding of the Magistrate under section 439A CrPC and there being no alternative remedy and all the remedies for the first party being exhausted, the first party is competent enough to come under section 561A CrPC and the court Can assume jurisdiction to see if there is any illegality committed by the court below whose orders have been challenged by the party…….. (24) 

When a waiver arises—

A waiver would arise when one party by his conduct leads another to believe that the strict rights arising under the contract will not be insisted upon by the other and if the second party acted on it, the first party would not be allowed to insist on that right when it would be inequitable to do so.

Waiver must originate from an agreement—

 Waiver is an agreement, though can even be expressed by conduct, to realise or not to assert a right and is, thus, contractual in nature and thus cannot be the basis of a cause of auction under Article 102 of the Constitution. Further, like all contracts waiver must originate from an agreement, must be lawful in nature and hence enforceable in law. An agreement which is illegal by itself cannot be enforced and as it cannot be enforced it cannot also be the basis of a contract. There cannot exist an agreement to waive an illegality because it is against public polity (AIR 1965 (SC) 1465). 

Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908); Order 6, rule 17

Before allowing any amendment or alteration of the pleading, whether the Court must came to a finding that such amendment or alteration is necessary—
Before allowing any amendment or alteration of the pleading, the Court must come to a finding that such amendment or alteration is necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties and further that such amendment or alteration does not change the nature and character of the suit or the same is not inconsistent with the earlier pleadings or it does not substitute any cause of action of the suit……………..(5) 

The Factories Board Ordinance, 1961

The employees under the Factories Board Ordinance, whether are civilian employees in any of the defence services.

Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980(Act VII of 1981)

Section 4(3)

The expression "person in the Defence Services of Bangladesh", whether includes the petitioners who were employees of the Ordnance Factories Boad.

The employees under the Ordnance Factories Board established under the Ordinance Factories Board Ordinance, 1961 (Since repealed) are not civilian employees in any of the defence services but pure and simple Government Servants (i.e. persons holding civil posts in service of the Republic) serving under the said Board Under the said ordinance of 1961 and that the Ordnance Factories Board apparently under section 7 of the Ordinance Factories Board Ordinance, 1961. has merely for convenience, adopted the civilian employees in Defence Services (Classification, Control, Appeal) Rules, 1961, which are similar to the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985, for regulating the terms, conditions, disciplinary matters etc. of the employees of the Ordinance Factories Board. Merely because of the adaptation of the said Civilian Employees in Defence Services (Classification Control, Appeal) Rules, 1961, by the Board, for the disciplinary matters of the employees of the said Board, the said employees do not become members of the defence services or members of services in connection with the defence.

The expression "person in the Defence Service of Bangladesh" as mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act does not include the petitioners who were employees of the Ordnance Factories Board (that is government servants serving under the Ordinance Factories Board ) 

Evi­dence to Be Excluded

Only that part of a witness's evi­dence to be excluded which is found false and not his whole evidence

Law does not require that the entire evidence of such an witness should be rejected. Evidence of such witnesses should be considered in the light of all circumstances on record and a court may accept that portion of the evidence which gets support from other reliable evidence on record.