Judgments : High Court Division Full List
 
Case Type
Case/Tender Number
Year
Parties
Short Description
 

Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Auto Star Trade … Petitioner -Versus- Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Mongla, Bagerhat, Bangladesh and others. … Respondents
Disposed of
2
The State ..... petitioner -Versus- Md. Hitu Sheikh alias Etu Sheikh ..... condemned-prisoner
In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the reference is accepted. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence of death passed by the Tribunal is hereby upheld. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed and the jail appeal is disposed of. But in the evidence of witnesses, we find that the defence very casually cross-examined the prosecution witnesses which is very unwanted. The accused was charged with rape followed by murder which provides capital punishment. In such a case, if the accused is found unable to engage a competent Advocate to defend him, in that case the Court may on its own initiative can appoint an experienced Advocate to defend the accused.
3
Government of Bangladesh and others -Versus- Afsaruddin Beg and others
A doubtful, unproved or legally infirm document cannot constitute the juridical foundation of title, and, in the absence of a prima facie title, an adverse entry in the record-of-rights, even if alleged to be erroneous, cannot ipso facto confer upon the plaintiff any declaratory or possessory right. Qui sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus (i.e., he who enjoys the benefit must also bear the burden) has no application to create a proprietary right where its legal source itself remains unproved.
4
Nilima Yasmin and another Vs. Supermax Healthcare Ltd. and others.
Allowed.
5
JG Facility Management Limited Vs. The Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and Firms and others.
Allowed
6
M/S Moushumi Traders, its Proprietor Md. Nazmul Hasan, son of Siraj Ullah Bhuiyan and others.-Vs-Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka and others.
Discharged
7
Md. Roman Bhoyan …..Petitioner -Versus- Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of the People`s Republic of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others
Relating to passport of former Hon`ble Judges of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh
8
The Commissioner of Taxes, Taxes Zone-1, Chattagram vs Confidence Cement Ltd., Chattagram
The first question was decided based on the non-obstante clause of sub-section (1) of section 82C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984. Tax deducted at source (TDS) under section 53 of the Ordinance, on the import of goods by an industrial undertaking as raw materials for its own consumption (such as a cement factory), shall be assessed as regular source of income instead of under section 82C. Conversely, TDS under section 52 read with rule 16 shall be assessed under section 82C of the Ordinance. The second question was decided on the basis that the reduction and deletion of disallowances of claimed expenses, as well as the reduction of estimated sales are purely factual matters involving no complex question of law. Therefore, we are of the view that we should not disturb the factual findings legally settled by the Tribunal.
9
OnMobile Global Limited vs National Board of Revenue and others
The issuance of a notice under section 213 of the Income Tax Act, 2023 to revise the erroneous assessment order passed by the DCT, after the expiry of four years from the date of the order sought to be revised, is declared to have been issued without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect.
10
Solar Television Mfg. Ltd. vs Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others
The Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal is required to dispose of an appeal by passing such order or orders as it deems fit upon consideration of the merits of the case, thereby confirming, modifying, or annulling the decision or order appealed against. The order of the Tribunal, dismissing the appeal for default, is hereby declared to have been passed without lawful authority and hence, is of no legal effect.
11
Engineer Md. Mohosin vs Commissioner of Taxes, Taxes Zone-1, Chattogram and others
The legislature intends for a person to be given a fair opportunity to defend him or herself before any decision is made that negatively impacts his or her rights, property, or status. The person must be given a genuine opportunity to present his or her side of the story, submit evidence, and challenge or cross-examine the evidence brought against him or her. A court must fix a date that gives the defendant reasonable and sufficient time to prepare his or her defense and travel to the court. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to respondent No. 1 for a rehearing. This will afford the petitioner a meaningful opportunity to be heard and to adduce further evidence, if any.
12
BSRM Steels Limited vs Commissioner of Taxes, Large Taxpayer’s Unit (LTU), Dhaka
The first issue was decided on the basis that the disallowance of expenses from the profit and loss accounts and the manufacturing and trading accounts are purely factual matters involving no complex question of law. Therefore, we are of the view that we should not disturb the factual findings legally settled by the Commissioner of Taxes in disposing of the revisional application under section 121A of the Ordinance. The second issue was decided based on the non-obstante clause of sub-section (1) of section 82C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984, The business income of the petitioner was classified correctly by the DCT based on deduction of tax at source for recovery of minimum tax under section 82C of the Ordinance. As such, the Rules in above two writ petitions are hereby discharged.
13
Kaniz Fatema vs Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others
We are of the view that the redemption fine should be aligned with the rationalized standard deemed reasonable by the Legislature and subsequently codified in the Finance Act, 2014. Accordingly, respondent No.4 is directed to modify the redemption fine and fix it at 50% of the actual evaded VAT amount in place of an astronomical amount.
14
IPCO Developments (Bangladesh) Limited vs The Commissioner of Taxes, Taxes Zone-6, Dhaka.
For the purpose of computing income or losses, as assessee must first have income under section 28 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984. From that income, allowable expenses shall be deducted under section 29 of the Ordinance, subject to certain circumstances where deductions are not admissible as provided under section 30 of the Ordinance. We find that the Tribunal was fully justified in upholding the rejection of the claim of business loss. The statutory mechanics of the Ordinance dictate that business deductions cannot be claimed against a non-existent revenue stream prior to the commencement of commercial operation.
15
BBC Bangladesh Limited vs The Commissioner of Taxes, Taxes Zone-8, Dhaka
The disallowance of expenses from the profit and loss accounts is purely factual matters involving no complex question of law. Therefore, we are of the view that we should not disturb the factual findings legally settled by the Tribunal. We find no provision of law that allows for the determination of foreign currency invested as a “share money deposit” as income under section 28 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984. While the Tribunal is competent to decide all questions of fact and law and serves as the final arbiter of factual matters, the legal aspects were entirely ignored.
16
BBC Bangladesh Limited vs The Commissioner of Taxes, Taxes Zone-8, Dhaka
The disallowance of expenses from the profit and loss accounts is purely factual matters involving no complex question of law. Therefore, we are of the view that we should not disturb the factual findings legally settled by the Tribunal. The second question was decided based on that we find no provision of law that allows for the determination of foreign currency invested as a “share money deposit” as income under section 28 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984. While the Tribunal is competent to decide all questions of fact and law and serves as the final arbiter of factual matters, the legal aspects were entirely ignored.
17
Zen International Limited, Dhaka vs The Commissioner of Taxes, Taxes Zone-10, Dhaka.
The first question was decided on the basis that the disallowance of expenses, including losses from burglaries, from the profit and loss accounts are purely factual matters involving no complex question of law. Therefore, we are of the view that we should not disturb the factual findings legally settled by the Tribunal. The second question was decided based on the principle that the estimation of commission receipts is also a factual matter unless proved otherwise with verifiable evidence. In the present case, the applicant received commissions from bKash Limited (a BRAC Bank subsidiary) which is supported by verifiable evidence. Hence, we are of the view that the Tribunal estimated the commission receipts without applying a judicial mind.
18
Alltex Industries Limited vs The Commissioner of Taxes, Large Taxpayers Unit (LTU), Dhaka
It is our considered view that while section 35(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 directs the applicant company to furnish a trading account, a profit and loss account, and a balance sheet certified by a Chartered Accountant, such certification does not dispense with the statutory requirement to produce primary, verifiable evidence in support of the specific financial claims made therein. The disallowance of claimed expenses and estimation of gross profit are purely factual matters, involving no complex questions of law. Therefore, we are of the view that we should not disturb the factual findings legally settled by the Tribunal.
19
Hatil Complex Limited, Dhaka vs The Commissioner of Taxes, Taxes Zone-7, Dhaka
It is our considered view that while section 35(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 directs the applicant company to furnish a trading account, a profit and loss account, and a balance sheet certified by a Chartered Accountant, such certification does not dispense with the statutory requirement to produce primary, verifiable evidence in support of the specific financial claims made therein. The disallowance of claimed expenses and estimation of sales are purely factual matters, involving no complex question of law. We are of the view that we should not disturb the factual findings legally settled by the Tribunal.
20
Azahar Uddin Bhuiyan, being dead, his legal heirs, 1(b) Md. Anowarul Salam Bhuiyan and others Vs. Chandraban Bibi and others
Allowed
21
Aziz Al Kaiser Vs. Mrs. Tabassum Kaiser and others
Order of Injunction
22
Md. Alkas Uddin Ahmed verus The Government of the People`s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Education, Secretariat Building, Ramna, Dhaka and others
Disposed of
23
Md. Thandu Mia vs. The State and another
S.138A NI Act has overriding effect over S.246(2A) of the Cr.PC.
24
Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) vs. Government of Bangladesh and others
Judgment of Bakkhali River flowing from Cox`s Bazar to the Bay of Bengal.
25
Md. Abdur Rob Howlader and others ... Defendant-Petitioners -Versus- Dita Majumder and others ...Plaintiff-Opposite Parties
Discharged
26
The State .....petitioner -Versus- S.M. Sirajuddowla and 15 others .....condemned-prisoners
In the result, the reference is accepted in part, so far it relates to condemned prisoners S.M. Sirajuddowla and Shahadat Hossain Shamim and rejected in respect of others. The criminal appeals 13886 and 14698 of 2019 filed by the condemned prisoners S.M. Sirajuddowla and Shahadat Hossain Shamim respectively are dismissed. Criminal Appeals 13887, 13888, 14097, 13885 of 2019 filed by Nooruddin, Shakhawat Hossain Jabed, Saifur Rahman Md. Zubayer and Umme Sultana Poppy respectively are hereby dismissal with commutation of their death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Criminal Appeals 12019, 12268, 12296, 12293, 13882, 14096, 14473, 14637 and 14697 of 2019 filed by the condemned prisoners Mohammad Shamim, Ruhul Amin, Maksud Alam Councilor, Afsaruddin, Hafez Abdul Kader, Abdur Rahim Sharif, Iftekharuddin Rana, Imran Hossain Mamun, Mohiuddin Shakil and Quamrunnahar Moni respectively are allowed and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Let them be immediately set at liberty, if not wanted in connection with any other cases. Jail Appeals are accordiongly disposed of.
27
Halima Yeasmin and others Vs Jaheda Begum and others
It is made clear that the question of limitation and exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act shall be determined by the competent appellate Court in accordance with law and upon consideration of the facts and circumstances relating to the prosecution of the proceeding before the wrong forum. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as an automatic or unconditional condonation of delay.
28
Mohammad Jinna Miah and another -Versus- Mosarrof Hossen and others
This First Appeal is allowed.
29
Globe Construction Limited -vs- Rajdhani Unnayan Kartipakkha (RAJUK) and others
Appeal Dismissed. Rule Discharged
30
Md. Yasin Ali Sheikh VS Md. Mohammad Ishaq and others
Absolute
31
Babu Prodeep Kanti Das ... Convict-Appellant-Petitioner -Versus- The State and another ... Opposite parties
The Rule is disposed of
32
Reaz Uddin Shepai ...Convict-Appellant -Versus- The State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka ...Respondent
The appeal is allowed
33
Md. Iqbal Hossein ... Convict-Appellant -Versus- The State and another ...Complainant-Respondents
The Appeal is disposed of
34
Md. Abdul Hannan Master ... Convict-Appellant -Versus- The State and another ...Complainant-Respondents
The Appeal is disposed of
35
Abdul Jalil Mridha -Versus- Most. Fatima Johora and others
Absolute
36
Executive Engineer, Bangladesh Water Development Board, Natore Vs. Khan Mohammad Monjur-E-Khuda being died his legal heirs: 1(a) Parvez Mahmud Khan and others
The opposite parties as plaintiff filed Other Class Suit Number 33 of 2006 in the Court of the Senior Assistant Judge, Natore on 12.02.2006 seeking a declaration of title in respect of 0.1544 acres of land appertaining to C.S. and S.A. Plot Numbers 1756 and 1757 corresponding to R.S. Plot Number 2604.
37
Md. Naimur Rahman Tony and others Vs.Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Medical Education and Family Welfare Division, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and another
Disposed of
38
Sharif Uddin Md. Hassan and others Vs. RJSC and others.
Allowed.
39
Hosne Ara ... Defendant No.2-Petitioner Versus Government Haji Mohammad Mohsin College and others ...Opposite Parties
The Rule is discharged without any order as to costs.
40
The State Vs. Most. Lucky Khatun and another
The Death Reference is rejected with modification of sentence; consequently the Criminal Appeal No.8455 of 2018 and Jail Appeal No.247of 2018 are dismissed with modification of sentence.
41
The State … Appellant -Versus- Md. Sohel Biswash ….Condemned-Prisoner
the Death Reference No. 75 of 2018 is rejected and both the Criminal Appeal No.7561 of 2018 and Jail Appeal No.212 of 2018 are hereby dismissed.
42
Md. Mizanur Rahman …Appellant-Petitioner Versus Mosammot Rasheda Khatun and another ...Defendant-Opposite parties
Absolute-in-part
43
Mst. Nestara Begum Vs Md. Tohirul Islam and others
Discharged
44
Md. Babul Islam -Versus- Md. Alimuddin and others
Absolute, sending the case on remand to the trial Court.
45
Maulana Nurul Islam -Versus- Mawlana A.B.M Nuruzzaman and another
Discharged
46
Pochondor Ali and others versus Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Sunamganj and others
Absolute in part
47
Rujina Akhter vs Government of Bangladesh and others
Judgment of Habeus Corpus
48
Masudur Rahman and others -Versus- Md. Anowar Hossain and others
Discharged with costs
49
S.M. Md. Abdul Baten and others vs.Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Senior Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and another
Absolute
50
Md. Abul Karim Molla Vs Md. Sadek Ali Molla and others
Absolute
This Site is Visited :