Search Options

Judgment Search By Title

Displaying 401-420 of 8375 results.
Kanin (India)(P) Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Dhaka and another, 2011, 40 CLC (HCD)

Time Limit

In order to get the grounds of decision communicated, the intending appellant has to file an application on form T.M-15 within one month from communication of the decision. On receipt of the grounds, the appellant would present the memo of appeal before the High Court Division within the time as prescribed in rule 84……..................(8)

Decision of Registrar no bar for appeal

If a person whether juristic or natural is aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks, can prefer an appeal in spite of being not a party in the original proceeding. A person aggrieved is never prohibited to present an appeal against a decision of the Registrar, Trade Marks by any provision neither in the Civil Procedure Code nor in the Trade Marks Act or the rules made thereunder.  ...............(11)  


Tasmima Hossain Vs. Anti-Corruption Commission and others, 2008, 37 CLC (HCD)


Nasirul Islam Vs. Bangladesh and others, 2011, 40 CLC (HCD)


Mohammad Abdus Sabur Vs. Agrani Bank, 2011, 40 CLC (HCD)


Md. Nasurullah alias Nasu Vs. Artha Rin Adalat No. 4, Dhaka and others, 2011, 40 CLC (HCD)


Mirza Ahsan Habib Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Khulna and another, 2011, 40 CLC (HCD)


Md. Wasiq Khan Vs. Md. Sabiq Khan and others, 1978, 7 CLC (AD)


Sanjoy Roy Vs. Bangladesh and others, 2011, 40 CLC (HCD)


Md. Hamiduzzaman Vs. Joint District Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Faridpur and others, 2011, 40 CLC (HCD)


Mst. Phulbanu @ Phul Vs. State, 2008, 37 CLC (HCD)


Aslam Khan Vs. Artha Rin Adalat, Moulvibazar and another, 2011, 40 CLC (HCD)


Nazim Uddin Vs. Bangladesh and others, 2011, 40 CLC (HCD)


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


Bangladesh Shilpakala Academy Vs. Shahidul Islam and another, 1997, 26 CLC (AD)


Mohiuddin (Md) and others Vs. Md. Motiur Rahman & another, 1997, 26 CLC (AD)

The Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Special Provision) Ain, 1995 (XVIII of 1995), Section 17

The Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Adalat was not correct in rejecting the charge sheet and discharging the petitioners solely on consideration of the victim’s girl’s affidavit and medical certificate as to her age.

It is required for the Adalat to consider whether a prima facie offence has been disclosed in the F.I.R. charge- sheet and other materials on record against the accused and if so, the Adalat shall take cognizance of the case and give a hearing to the prosecution and the accused for the purpose of framing charge under section 241A Cr. P. C. with liberty to decide of its own whether to frame charge or not…………………..(9) 


Abdus Samad Akand and others Vs. Abdul Halim Miji and others, 1997, 26 CLC (AD)


Azizur Rahman alias Md. Azizur Rahman Vs. Bangladesh, 1997, 26 CLC (AD)


Al-Haj Abul Basher Vs. Bangladesh and others, 1997, 49 CLC (AD)


Moslemuddin (Md) and others Vs. Md. Jonab Ali and another, 1997, 26 CLC (AD)


Mansur Ali Sikder Vs. Kanailal Banaajee & others, 1997, 26 CLC (AD)