Search Options
Judgment Search By Title
Akhtar Masood Vs. Mrs. Bilkis Jahan Ferdous, 1998, 27 CLC (AD)
Shahidullah (Md) Vs. Abdus Sobhan Talukder and others, 1996, 25 CLC (AD)
Most. Sufia Chowdhury Vs. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others, 2010, 39 CLC (HCD)
Shahida Khatun Vs. Abdul Malek Howlader and others, 1998, 27 CLC (AD)
Sunil Chandra Mondal and others Vs. Narayan Chandra Shil & others, 1996, 25 CLC (AD)
Bangladesh Railway and ors. Vs. Pranab Kumur Chakraborty and ors., 1996, 25 CLC (AD)
Bangladesh Vs. Mahbubuddin Ahmed, 1998, 27 CLC (AD)
Idris Shaikh Vs. Jilamon Bewa and others, 1997, 26 CLC (AD)
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [V of 1908], Section 148
In a case where a court passes a decree for specific performance of contract the court retains the jurisdiction to extend time under section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to deposit any outstanding amount decided even though the decree contains a default clause that in default of the plaintiff to make the requisite payment within the period fixed by the court the suit shall stand dismissed. Nothing to differ with the view…………………….(5)
Md. Farid Hossain Vs. State, 2007, 36 CLC (HCD)
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act No. V of 1898); section 339C (4)
There is specified period i.e. 360 days, for concluding trial of a criminal case under section 339C (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the trial of a case cannot be concluded within 360 days, the accused, if in custody, should be released on bail even in a case on non-bailable offence unless there is any special reason. Inordinate and unreasonable delay in holding the trial provides a good ground for considering an application for bail even in a case involving grave offences…………………………………(5)
Niman Ali Vs. Ramizuddin and another, 1998, 27 CLC (AD)
Rafique (Md) Vs. Syed Morshed Hossain and another, 1998, 27 CLC (AD)
Shahidullah (Md) Vs. Md. Yunus and others , 1998, 27 CLC (AD)
Meghna Petroleum Limited Vs. Commissioner of Taxes (East Zone) Dhaka, 1998, 27 CLC (AD)
Bangladesh Moktijoddah Kalyan Trust rep. by MD Vs. Kamal Trading Agency & others. 1997, 26 CLC (AD)
The Contract Act, 1872 (IX of 1872), section 7
Defendant floated a tender inviting offers for setting its property to which plaintiff offered to purchase the same and sent a bank draft for 2% of the offered price and though the same was encashed by the defendant no decision was taken by the defendant accepting plaintiff’s offer. Hence plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract.
Held: the core of a valid contract, namely, consensus ad interim was thus plainly lacking in the present transaction. The statements made by the plaintiff in ext. 8 (ka) and 1 that the defendant was yet to take a decision and the plaintiff’s tender was pending, which is the case of the defendant, knock the bottom out of plaintiff suit for specific performance of contract, for there was no agreement which was enforceable by law…………………(32 & 34)
Sharashibala Sarkar and others Vs. Patani Sundari Dassaya and another, 1998, 27 CLC (AD)
Mokaddesh Mondal and Others Vs. State and Others, 1998, 27 CLC (AD)
Abdus Sattar Vs. State and another , 1998, 27 CLC (AD)
Fazlul Karim Chowdhury and (Md) and others Vs. Lutfunnessa Begum and others, 1998, 27 CLC (AD)
Shinepukur Holdings Ltd. & others Vs. Securities and Exchange Commission & another, 1998, 27 CLC (AD)