Salamaziz - Barristers, Advocates & Consultants - Law Chambers

  • Home
  • Salamaziz - Barristers, Advocates & Consultants - Law Chambers

Salamaziz - Barristers, Advocates & Consultants - Law Chambers We are a Law Chambers based in Dhaka. We are providing legal services for 50+ years.

Supreme Court of Bangladesh (Appellate Division)INCIVIL APPEAL NO.83 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.69 OF 2017 AND CIVIL P...
01/06/2026

Supreme Court of Bangladesh (Appellate Division)

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO.83 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.69 OF 2017 AND CIVIL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NOS.1902, 1844, 1884, 1940-1941 OF
2012, 2516-2519, 2599, 2572-2573, 2155, 2476, 2431-2432 All OF 2013, 662-663, 2536 OF 2014, 1491 OF 2010, 3145 OF 2016 AND 659 OF 2017

Held that the High Court Division rightly held the petitioners to be “workers” employed under the Government-owned enterprises or corporations, having regard to the factual stance of each petitioner and in view of the definitions contained in Sections 2(e) and 14 of the Public Corporation (Management Coordination) Ordinance, 1986, read with Sections 2(65), 28, and 336 of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006. This finding derives support from a number of reported and unreported decisions of the High Court Division, as well as from the decision of this Division in M.A. Hai and others v. Trading Corporation of Bangladesh, reported in 40DLR(AD)207, observing, inter alia, that the services of workers employed in any public enterprise or corporation are governed by Section 14A of the said Ordinance, and accordingly, such workers are entitled to remain in service until completion of sixty (60) years of age.




শুভ নববর্ষের আন্তরিক শুভেচ্ছা ও অভিনন্দন জানাচ্ছে সালামআজিজ।নতুন বছরের প্রতিটি দিন হোক আনন্দ, সাফল্য ও সমৃদ্ধিতে ভরপুর।স...
14/04/2026

শুভ নববর্ষের আন্তরিক শুভেচ্ছা ও অভিনন্দন জানাচ্ছে সালামআজিজ।

নতুন বছরের প্রতিটি দিন হোক আনন্দ, সাফল্য ও সমৃদ্ধিতে ভরপুর।

সবার জীবনে বয়ে আসুক সুখ, শান্তি ও নতুন সম্ভাবনার আলো।
শুভ নববর্ষ!



“… … In Lazarus Estate Ltd. Vs. Beasley, (1956) 1 QB 702 , PP. 712 and 713, Lord Denning observed:“No judgment of a Cour...
17/08/2025

“… … In Lazarus Estate Ltd. Vs. Beasley, (1956) 1 QB 702 , PP. 712 and 713, Lord Denning observed:

“No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.”

In the same judgment, Lord Parker L.J. observed that:
“Fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity.”

The High Court Division, while declaring the entire
proceedings of L.A. Case No.1/2010-2011 including the impugned Memo dated 23.11.2010 issued by the Ministry of Land as being unlawful, malafide and without jurisdiction, took cognizance of the said fictitious and non-existent note/concise report dated
08.11.2010. Resultantly, the entire judgment and order dated 13.02.2014 by the High Court Division is vitiated with fraud and the same is, accordingly, struck down.

In the result, all the civil appeals bearing Nos.171-
174 of 2015 are hereby allowed.”

The above was held:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
APPELLATE DIVISION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.171-174 OF 2015.
(From the judgment and order dated 13.02.2014 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition Nos.766, 803, 1242 and 1478 all of 2012).

Deputy Commissioner, Chittagong : .....Appellant
(In all the cases)

-Versus-

Interbulk Overseas SA Bangladesh
Limited and another. :...Respondents
(In C.A. No. 171/15)

A. K. Khan and Company Limited,
represented by its Managing
Director and others. :...Respondents
(In C.A. No. 172/15)

East West Property Development
(Pvt.) and others. :...Respondents
(In C.A. No. 173/15)

Bashundhara Industrial Complex
Limited and another. :...Respondents
(In C.A. No. 174/15)




"... ... In a suit for specific performance of contract, neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court has any jurisdi...
08/07/2025

"... ... In a suit for specific performance of contract, neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court has any jurisdiction/authority to determine the price of suit property afresh, exercising its judicial power ignoring the terms of contract. Court cannot re-fix the consideration, i.e. the value of the suit property and go beyond the terms of the contract, and it cannot impose or add any term(s) in the contract."

The above is an extract from the judgment in
CIVIL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.494 AND 495 OF 2018
(APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH)

(From the judgment and decree dated the 16th day of May, 2017 passed by the High Court Division in First Appeal No.106 of 2009 and Cross Objection No. 795 of 2011 respectively.

APPELLATE DIVISIONIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2024(Arising out of Civil Petition No. 16...
08/07/2025

APPELLATE DIVISION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2024
(Arising out of Civil Petition No. 1680 of 2023)

Date of hearing and judgment: 21.05.2025

Held that:
"... ... Upon overall gleaning it is of paramount importance to underscore that the issue at hand stems directly from a contempt proceeding. In this regard, it must be unequivocally stated that the core matter has already been conclusively adjudicated and attained it’s finality by this Division through the dismissal of both the Civil Appeals and the subsequent review petitions.

Accordingly, the determination made by this Division in the context of the contempt proceeding must be construed in a strictly limited and confined scope. No further examination, interpretation, or deliberation is warranted with respect to a matter that has already been authoritatively and unambiguously settled by this Division, as outlined above. Upholding such finality not only reinforces the sanctity of judicial decisions but also ensures certainty administration of justice.

Repeated attempts and consistency in the to delay, dilute, or defy compliance with judgments that have attained finality strike at the heart of judicial authority and gravely undermine the rule of law. Such conduct not only erodes institutional credibility but also constitutes a direct affront to the constitutional command embedded in Article 111 of the Constitution.

It is the solemn obligation of all public functionaries to honour and execute binding decisions of this Division. Any deliberate disregard or circumvention of such authority amounts to insubordination and shall not be tolerated under any circumstances.

For that reason, it is our considered view that any further deviation shall amount to defiance of Court’s order and shall invoke contempt jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any
order as to costs.




"... The borrower who takes over the management unencumbered can in no way be responsible of the previous liabilities wh...
08/05/2025

"... The borrower who takes over the management unencumbered can in no way be responsible of the previous liabilities which must be vested upon the previous management. In the instant case, the respondent no. 1, company did not avail any loan after the new management took over the charge of it so, as per the agreement and that of the order of the High Court Division staying the winding-up proceeding, they cannot be treated as defaulting-borrowers..."

Held
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10-12 OF 2022
(Arising out of C.P Nos. 1903 of 2020, 2149 of 2020 and 2024 of 2020 respectively)

Judgment On: 08.08.2023

“… it appears to us that the contents of the plaint do disclose the cause of action for the suit. Moreover, in this case...
29/04/2025

“… it appears to us that the contents of the plaint do disclose the cause of action for the suit. Moreover, in this case the learned Advocate for the plaintiff-opposite party No.1 argues that the plaintiff filed the suit based on a family settlement which was reduced into writing and duly registered on 24.06.1999 under the title of Family Settlement Agreement. There are good number of documentary evidences which can be substantiated by the oral evidences during trial in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party No.1, the plaintiff also has money receipts and family settlement agreement to prove his case. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to see eye to eye to such submission of the learned Advocate for the defendant petitioner that the suit is a fruitless litigation and the contents of the plaint do not disclose any cause of action for the suit… “

Held
In The Supreme Court of Bangladesh
High Court Division

Civil Revision No. 720 of 2022

In the Matter of:

Mrs. Afsana Barik Malik.
-Versus-
Zakaria Hossain Chowdhury and others

Judgment On: 20.01.2025





“… It is true that the subject matter of the case is more or less company bench matter and accordingly, the plaintiff as...
27/04/2025

“… It is true that the subject matter of the case is more or less company bench matter and accordingly, the plaintiff as applicant earlier filed a company matter being No. 112 of 2005 before a appropriate company bench of this Court which was disallowed by judgment and order dated 31.05.2018 with observation that- “ But so far the question of entitlement of the petitioner to the transfer of shares held in the name of the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 are concerned, it appears that the disputed question of title to the property is involved in the said issue and as such the question of part performance by the parties under the Family Settlement Agreement dated 24.06.1999 is required to be considered upon evidence in a properly constituted suit for specific performance of contract”. In view of the above, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Advocate for the defendant No. 1, petitioner that the subject matter of the suit is company bench matter and the instant suit is misconceived and the suit is hopelessly barred by the principle of resjudicata. Besides, questions of limitation and resjudicata raised in the application for rejecting the plaint are mixed questions of law and fact which need thorough investigation on adequate evidence for arriving at a correct decision on framing specific issues by the trial Court. We, therefore, find no merit in the contention. The decisions cited are distinguishable on facts… “

Held
In The Supreme Court of Bangladesh
High Court Division

Civil Revision No. 720 of 2022

In the Matter of:
Mrs. Afsana Barik Malik.

-Versus-

Zakaria Hossain Chowdhury and others

Judgment On: 20.01.2025






In the case of Khondker Delwar Hossain Vs. Italian Marble Works reported in 62 DLR (AD) 298 the Appellate Division held ...
27/04/2025

In the case of Khondker Delwar Hossain Vs. Italian Marble Works reported in 62 DLR (AD) 298 the Appellate Division held that estoppel cannot be pleaded against or in respect of statute, much less against the constitution.

Address

House 26, Road 14A

1209

Telephone

+8801733502842

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Salamaziz - Barristers, Advocates & Consultants - Law Chambers posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Salamaziz - Barristers, Advocates & Consultants - Law Chambers:

Shortcuts

  • Want your business to be the top-listed Law Practice?

Share