Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Co-Operative Societies Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance No. 1 of 1985)
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 2

When report of enquiry forms the basis of allegations against the Managing Committee a copy of the Report is an indispensable tool in its hands in giving reply to the show cause notice. Borhanuzzaman vs Ataur Rahman Chowdhury 46 DLR (AD) 94. ....View Full Judgment

Section 19(2)

read with
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Articles-27 and 38
(a) Section-19(2) of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance challenged by the petitioner who was elected for 3 consecutive terms, a member of the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society is not violative of the Articles-27 and 38 of the Bangladesh Constitution though S. 19(2) imposes restriction on a citizen rendering the petitioner uneligible for being elected as an officer of the Co-operative Society unless a period of 2 years elapsed before the expiry of his last term as a member of the said society—the petitioner was not treated unequally. [Para-5]
Md. Abdus Sattar Vs. Bangladesh 1 BLT (AD)-31
(b) Interpretation of the legislative intent-old is gold- “the old order changeth yielding place to new-reasonableness of restriction.
“While the proverb “old is gold” has a fatal attraction, another proverb “the old order changeth yielding place to new” is equally honoured. Which proverb to following what given situation is a legislative exercise and it cannot be said that barring a thrice-elected Member of the Managing Committee to stand for election again till the lapse of 2 years since his last term expired is an unreasonable restriction.” [Para-5]
Md. Abdus Sattar Vs. Bangladesh 1 BLT(AD)-31 ....View Full Judgment

Section 19(2)

It cannot be said that barring a thrice- elected member of the Managing Committee to stand for election again till the lapse of 2 years since his last term expired, is an unreasonable restriction. Md. Abdus Sattar Vs. Bangladesh and others, 13 BLD(AD)103 ....View Full Judgment

Section 134(5)

Section 134(5) of the Ordinance provides for filing petition before the District Judge from an order of the appellate authority. This provision has been made for the examination of correctness of the decision of the appellate authority. The authority or power so assigned to the District Judge as well as to the Additional District Judge is not limited to the question of law alone, but also authorizes to examine the correctness of the decision of the appellate authority in the background of the materials on record and as such while examining the correctness of the decision of the appellate authority the District Judge or the Additional District Judge is quite competent to examine the case of the parties in the background of the materials placed on record and in the instant case the learned Additional District Judge on scrutiny of the materials brought on record by the parties arrived at the finding that the deed dated 14.3.1980 was forged and fabricated one. The power so exercised by the learned. Additional District Judge is quite in accordance with law. Md. Mojibul Huq alias Shaikh Vs. Mrs. Sonaban Bibi & Ors. 14 BLT (AD)47 ....View Full Judgment

Section 134 and Third Schedule

Section 134 and the Third Schedule to the Ordinance do not provide .for any appeal against an order of the District Co-Operative Officer under Sections 18 (3) and 18 (4) of the Ordinance. In such state of affairs, it is procedurally absurd to ask the Appellant to go to a higher appellate forum to obtain a verdict on the jurisdictional error of the first appellate authority. Nani Gopal Barman Vs. Bangladesh and Others, 14 BLD (AD) 52. ....View Full Judgment

Section 134(5)

Under Section 134(5) of the Ordinance the District Judge has been vested with the power to review the decision of the appellate authority. He is to see after examination of the records of the dispute case and appeal case whether the appellate authority acted illegally or with material irregularity in deciding the appeal causing miscarriage of justice. In a proceeding of this nature there is hardly any scope for examination of witnesses or production of documents afresh before him. Md. Lal Mia Vs. Bangladesh Milk Producer’s Co-operative Union Ltd., 17 BLD (AD) 293 ....View Full Judgment