As already stated hereinbefore, it appears that Dr. Naimur Rahman died on 26.12.2007 leaving behind a widow, three sons and a daughter and of these heirs: widow and a son are already on record in Company Matter No. 26 of 2006 as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. In Company Matter No. 137 of 2005, wife of Dr. Naimur Rahman is already on record as petitioner No.2. Therefore, the respective company matter did not abate as a whole. It further appears from the applications for substitution that the cause was shown as to the delay in filing the applications beyond 90 (ninety) days of the date of the death of Dr. Naimur Rahman. Manzurur Rahman vs. Dr. Naimur Rahman (Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah J) (Civil) 11 ADC 593

Companies Act [XVIII of 1994]
Sections 95 and 233 read with
Company Rules, 2009
Rule 8
The High Court Division is of the opinion that reading section 233 with section 95 of the Act and rule 8 of the company Rules, 2009 this court has jurisdiction to decide about the validity of a meeting held without complying with the provisions of section 95 and to cancel any resolution taken in such a meeting under section 233 as well as for ends of justice. Mr. Mohd. Abdul Wadud -Vs.- The Heaven Homes Private Limited represented by its Chairman Mr. Kohd. Abdus Salam and others. (Spl.Original) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 382 ....View Full Judgment

After the Companies Rules came into force, the Hon’ble Judges of this Court started to show their inclination towards entertaining application for non-compliance/violation of any provision of the Companies Act, even though the said provisions of the Companies Act do not license an aggrieved person to take recourse to the Company Court. ... So, in order to avail the provisions of Rule 8 of the Companies Rules, a petitioner requires to show the Court that a provision or provisions of the Companies Act has or have been breached. ...Engr. Md. Anwar Hossen Vs. Chittagong Club Ltd & ors., (Civil), 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 60
The plain and simple grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned decision taken by the club depriving him from enjoying the club’s facilities for 1 (one) year is illegal and the said grievance being a dispute of purely civil nature, the petitioner is competent to seek declaration from the civil Court challenging the propriety and legality of the impugned order coupled with making other prayers, including seeking temporary injunction and/or mandatory injunction upon the club. ...Engr. Md. Anwar Hossen Vs. Chittagong Club Ltd & ors., (Civil), 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 60 ....View Full Judgment