There is nothing in Section 28 of the Companies Act which exempts any Company registered under above provision from making contribution to the Labor Welfare Fund:
The learned Advocate for the petitioner repeatedly submits that the GTC is a nonprofit company and registered under Section 28 of Companies Act. As such GTC is not liable to contribute 5% of the net profit to the Labor Welfare Fund. In support of above submission the learned Advocate produced the Memorandum and Articles and Association of the GTC. But there is no mention in above Memorandum that the GTC is a nonprofit company. On the contrary Article 71 of above Memorandum shows that GTC may earn profit but the profit shall be utilized for the advancement of the objectives as stated in the above Memorandum. Since the GTC is a profit earning company it is not understandable as to why the company will not contribute a very insignificant part of its net profit for the welfare of its labors. There is nothing in Section 28 of the Companies Act which exempts any Company registered under above provision from making above contribution to the Labor Welfare Fund. ...Prof. Muhammad Yunus Vs. The State, (Criminal), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 162 ....View Full Judgment

Rectification of share register– In the present case since the company court having jurisdiction under section 38 of the Companies Act has found that the petitioners validly acquired 2,800 shares, the civil suit in the civil court will no longer proceed. The learned Advocate has contended that since complicated question of facts are involved in this case these should be decided by the civil court. But we do not accept this contention of the learned Advocate. It is evident that in this case the transfer of total 2,800 shares in favour of the petitioners by the respondent No. 6 is rather an admitted fact and the company court and this court also have found that these transfers of 2,800 shares in favour of the petitioners were valid. It is not acceptable at all that for the reason of pendency of a civil suit on the same matter the company court had no jurisdiction to decide whether the transfer of shares in favour of the petitioners were valid or not. In the circumstances both the civil appeals be dismissed on contest without any order as to cost. ...Bangladesh Paper Mills Limited =VS= Mosharraf Hossain, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 223] ....View Full Judgment

Public Corporation (Management Co-ordination) Ordinance, 1986 [XVII of 1994]
Section 14A
Companies Act 1913
Ordinance 86
Public Servants Retirement Act (Act XII of 1974)
Section 4
Bangladesh Oil, Gas and Mineral Corporation Ordinance, 1985
Retiring the respondent services on completion of their 57th years of age— Regarding maintainable of the writ petition as it appears though the appellant is a limited liability company incorporated under the Companies Act 1913 but it is an enterprise of the respondent No.4 shown at item No.22 of the schedule of Ordinance 86 as amended and further in terms of the Articles of Association of the appellant, the respondent No.4 has the absolute control over the appellant in all matters and any director of the appellant may be appointed and/or removed at the option of the respondent No.4/Government and any vacancy in the office of directors of the appellant shall be filled upon by the nominees of the respondent No.4/ Government and in view of these special features writ petition is maintainable. Appellate Division is of the view that the High Court Division did not commit any error in discharging the Rule. .....Bangladesh Gas Fields Co. Ltd. =VS= Md. Fariduddin Ahmed, (Civil), 2024(2) [17 LM (AD) 552] ....View Full Judgment