Search Options

Judgment Search By Title

Displaying 8401-8403 of 8403 results.
Solaiman (Md.) Vs. Ruma Akter, Head Mistress, Khash Hawla Govt. Primary School, Bhairab, Kishoregonj and others, 2013, 42 CLC (HCD)

Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2001; Section 21 & 21(1)

Jurisdiction of a District Judge to Entertain and Hear Appeals—

Sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Act invests a District Judge with the jurisdiction to entertain and hear appeals. It lays down that an appeal from a decree or order of a Joint District Judge shall lie to the District Judge where the value of the original suit in which or in proceedings arising out of which the decree or order was made does not exceed Taka 5,50,000 and to the High Court Division in any other case….. ...... (13)

Lacking of Inherent Jurisdiction— Court Got No Jurisdiction, Everything Shall Fall Through— Where an order or judgment is passed by a Court which lacked inherent jurisdiction in the sense that it had no competence to entertain and hear the case, the order is a nullity and no amount of consent of the parties or mere mis­take of the parties can confer validity to the same. Jurisdiction of a Court goes to the very root of the matter brought before it, and if the Court got no jurisdiction, everything shall fall through.

In the instant case the petitioner went for the hearing of the appeal without raising any objection as to the pecu­niary jurisdiction of the District Judge but the objection in this case being apparent on the face of the memo of appeal and there being an inherent incompetence in the District Judge to even entertain the appeal, an omission on the part of the petitioner to take exception to his jurisdiction could not legalise the acts of the District Judge. . . .(22, 24 & 23) 


Masudur Rahman (Md.) Vs. Bangladesh Bank and others, 2015, 44 CLC (HCD)

Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 Article 102(2)

Alternative Efficacious Reme­dy Provided Under the Companies Act, 1994

The subject matter of this petition and the reliefs prayed for squarely falls under the jurisdiction of the Company Bench of the High Court Division, and the sub­ject matter of this writ petition is covered by section 81 read with 85(3) of the Companies Act, 1994, read with the Rule. Accordingly, we hold that there is efficacious alter­native remedy, so far as the subject matter and the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition is provided for under sec­tions 81 and 85(3) of the Companies Act and the rules. And, indeed, the same issues were raised and the same reliefs were prayed for by another person, in Company Matter No. 165 of 1994, disposed of on 14-12-2014, by rejecting that petition (analogously with Matter No. 192 of 2014), in which the Respondents were the same as well. This petitioner could have added himself as party in that matter (since presentation of Company matters are pub­lished in 2 national daily News Papers). We are, therefore, of the considered view that this petition is not maintain­able. …………......(13)

 


Masud Haider (Md.) Vs. Md. Golam Ambia (Harun), 2015, 44 CLC (HCD)

Expert evidence

While expert opinion assists the court in the proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties—

Expert opinion is one piece of evidence and should be considered with other evidence on record. The disputed signatures of the plaintiff on the receipts of the money order (in original) should be compared with those in admitted agreement....... (14 & 15)