Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Contract Act, 1872 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 2(h) |
Earnest money to bind a contract must follow and not precede the same. If there is no meeting of minds of the parties, consensus ad idem, there cannot be any question of earnest money. Bangladesh Moktijoddah Kalyan Trust represented by the Managing Director vs Kamal Trading Agency and others 50 DLR (AD) 171. |
Bangladesh Moktijoddah Kalyan Trust represented by the Managing Director vs Kamal Trading Agency and others | 50 DLR (AD) 171 |
Sections 3 and 4 |
The tender floated by the House Building Finance Corporation for the sale of a mortgaged property has to be accepted for the purpose of concluding a contract. The alleged information by a nominated officer cannot be a proper communication of acceptance by the Corporation. The tenderer acquired no vested right on the property merely because his tender for that property had not been rejected and his earnest money had not been refunded by the Corporation. As there was no definite communication of acceptance of tender by the Corporation no vested right was acquired by the plaintiff. Sahana Chowdhury (widow) and others Vs Md Ibrahim Khan and another, 21 BLD (AD) 79. |
Sahana Chowdhury (widow) and others Vs Md Ibrahim Khan and another, | 21 BLD (AD) 79 |
Sections 3 and 4 |
The tenderer acquired no vested right of a property merely because his tender for that property had not been rejected and his earnest money had not been refunded by the Corporation. As there was no definite communication of acceptance of tender by the Corporation no vested right was acquired by the plaintiff. Sahana Chowdhury (Widow) and others vs Md Ibrahim Khan and another 6 BLC (AD) 67. |
Sahana Chowdhury (Widow) and others vs Md Ibrahim Khan and another | 6 BLC (AD) 67 |
Sections 3,4 and 8 |
In the instant case, by accepting the offer of defendant No. 3 by defendant No. 1 and delivery of possession of a part of the suit holding there was a concluded contract between defendant No, 1 and defendant No. 3 and subsequent amendment of the Bangladesh Abandoned Property (Building in Urban Areas) Rules, 1972 by sub-rule (4A) could not take away the vested right or be detrimental to the right of defendant No. 3 but the Courts below committed an error of law in holding that, the auction sale was not complete and the plaintiff had pre-emptory right to make offer of the highest bid made in the auction on the strength of subsequent amendment of the Rules by inserting sub-rule (4A) in Rule 10 of the Bangladesh Abandoned Property (Building in Urban Areas) Rules, 1972. United Commercial Bank Ltd and anr vs Rahimafrooz Batteries Ltd and ors 7 BLC (AD) 73. |
United Commercial Bank Ltd and anr vs Rahimafrooz Batteries Ltd and ors | 7 BLC (AD) 73 |
Sections 4, 5 & 73 |
The offer of the plaintiff was accepted by the defendant seller by its letter of acceptance, Exhibit-2(a). Consequently, there was a concluded contract between the plaintiff buyer and the defendant seller as regards sale of the suit property. But the plaintiff buyer failed to pay the aforesaid sum even within the extended time and thus committed breach of the contract. The defendant seller was therefore entitled to forfeit and it did forfeit the earnest money for breach of the above terms and conditions of the contract. Mesbahuddin Ahmed vs James Finlay 12 BLC (AD) 156. |
Mesbahuddin Ahmed vs James Finlay | 12 BLC (AD) 156 |
Section 7 |
An acceptance must be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes a particular manner in which it is to be accepted. Acceptance means, in general, communicated acceptance. In the instant case the manner of acceptance has been clearly indicated by the plaintiffs in Exhibit-8 signifying offer. [Per A.T.M. Afzal, C.J; (Majority)] Bangladesh Muktijoddah Kalyan Trust, represented by the Managing Director Vs Kamal Trading Agency and others, 18 BLD(AD)99 |
Bangladesh Muktijoddah Kalyan Trust, represented by the Managing Director Vs Kamal Trading Agency and others, | 18 BLD (AD) 99 |
Section 7 |
Earnest money does not form part of consideration—
|
Bangladesh Muktyoddha Kalian Trust represented by the Managing Director Vs. Kamal Trading Agency and others. | 3 MLR (AD) 1 |
Section 9 |
Price is the essence of sale of immovable property.
|
M/s. Chittagong Engineering & Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (1970) | 22 DLR (SC) 443 |
Section 15 |
The writ petitioner of his own filed an application to the management seeking reemployment upon giving an undertaking that he would realise the outstanding dues from BK Shaha and that in case of his failure the outstanding dues would be realisable from his salary and service benefits and that the letters impugned in the writ petition being the follow-up of 'the representation, the undertaking that was obtained from the writ petitioner can in no way be said that it was obtained by the authority under coercion and duress and while he was in distress situation or that'it was issued without lawful authority. Abdul Majid (Md) vs Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation 9 BLC (AD) 37. |
Abdul Majid (Md) vs Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation | 9 BLC (AD) 37 |
Section 16 |
Defendant No. 1 was undoubtedly in a dominant position on account of his high official position and close association with the Martial Law Authority at the relevant time and the plaintiff had a helpless role to play in the face of pressure from the Martial Law Authority. The bargain obtained by defendant No. 1 in the compromise petition was clearly unconscionable because the plaintiff had to give up his rightful claim in the contractual land. The burden of proof that the compromise was not attained by undue influence, therefore, lay squarely upon defendant No.1 which he has miserably failed to discharge. Abul Hossain Vs Farooq Sobhan and others, 19 BLD(AD)291 |
Abul Hossain Vs Farooq Sobhan and others, | 19 BLD (AD) 291 |
Section 16 |
Undue influence defined—
|
Abul Hossain Vs. Farooq Sobhan and others. | 4 MLR (AD) 392 |
Section 16 |
Transfer of property in lieu of dower—
|
Nasir Ahmed Khan Vs. Ismat Jahan Begum. (1969) | 21 DLR (SC) 145 |
Section 17- |
Fraud—
|
Abdur Rashid & Bhiila and others vs Moulana Mobaswar Ahmed and others | 8 BLC (AD) 11 |
Section 20 |
Mistake of fact— Legal position of contract—
|
S. Sibtain Fazli Vs. M/s. Star Film Distributor. (1964) | 16 DLR (SC) 198 |
Section 23 |
The JVA and GPSA having been procured by corruption would be void under section 23 of the Contract Act as being opposed to "public policy". Bribery and corruption are anathema to the concepts of rule of law and accountability and clearly against the "public policy". Public contracts procured by corruption are obviously against the "public policy" of Bangladesh. .....Niko Resources (Bd) Ltd Vs. Professor M. Shamsul Alam & ors, (Civil), 19 SCOB [2024] AD 125 ....View Full Judgment |
Niko Resources (Bd) Ltd Vs. Professor M. Shamsul Alam & ors | 19 SCOB [2024] AD 125 |
Section 23 |
The Contract Act, 1872
|
Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. =VS= Prof. M. Shamsul Alam | 15 LM (AD) 108 |
Section 23 |
Admittedly the Government was not a party to the alleged contract and, as such, the same could not be enforced against the Government whether it came to contest the suit or not. Bangladesh Railway and others vs Pranab Kumur Chakraborty and others 50 DLR (AD) 150. |
Bangladesh Railway and others vs Pranab Kumur Chakraborty and others | 50 DLR (AD) 150 |
Section 23 |
The suit land being the property of the Government the Railway Administration could not make any contract with respect to the same. Bangladesh Railway and others vs Pranab Kumur Chakraborty and others 50 DLR (AD) 150. |
Bangladesh Railway and others vs Pranab Kumur Chakraborty and others | 50 DLR (AD) 150 |
Section 23 |
If for withdrawing and compromising a non–compoundable case an agreement is entered into between the parties then the same is against public policy and the bar of section 23 of the Contract Act is attracted. Moti Mia vs Ayesha Khatun and another 48 DLR (AD) 64. |
Moti Mia vs Ayesha Khatun and another | 48 DLR (AD) 64 |
Section 23 |
By an oblique and indirect reference the object of the agreement cannot be brought within the mischief of section 23 of the Contract Act. Moti Mia vs Ayesha Khatun and another 48 DLR (AD) 64. |
Moti Mia vs Ayesha Khatun and another | 48 DLR (AD) 64 |
Section 23 |
If consideration is for compromising a non–compoundable offence then it is hit by section 23 of the Contract Act as opposed to public policy. Moti Mia vs Ayesha Khatun and another 48 DLR (AD) 64. |
Moti Mia vs Ayesha Khatun and another | 48 DLR (AD) 64 |
Section 23 |
Contract entered into between estranged husband and wife giving the visiting right to the plaintiff–husband by sending their minor son to him is, by no stretch of imagination, void. Irfan Sayed (Md) vs Mrs Rukshana Matin and others 48 DLR (AD) 134. |
Irfan Sayed (Md) vs Mrs Rukshana Matin and others | 48 DLR (AD) 134 |
Section 23 |
The suit land being the property of the Government the Railway Administration could not make any contract with respect to the same as this will plainly offend Section 23 of the Contract Act. [Para- 12] Bangladesh Railway & Ors. Vs. P. K. Chakraborty 5 BLT (AD)-153 |
Bangladesh Railway & Ors. Vs. P. K. Chakraborty | 5 BLT (AD) 153 |
Section 23 |
Agreement to compromise a criminal ease whether valid—Compromise of an of— fence which is not compoundable is against public policy—Such agreement is void—W validity of an agreement is impeached on r ground that it is opposed to public policy the party taking the plea must prove the same— party after securing his discharge in pursuance of a salishnama agreed by both the parties cannot disown the salishnama—Law does not encourage age a person to take advantage of his o wrong—The trial Court rightly dismissed t suit—Code of Criminal Procedure (V 1898)s. 345.Md. Joynal and others Vs. Rustani Ali Mia and others; 4BLD (AD) 86 |
Md. Joynal and others Vs. Rustani Ali Mia and others; | 4 BLD (AD) 86 |
Section 23 |
Payment of Municipal Tax—Whether the agreement that such tax for the premises would be payable by the tenant is void—By mutual agreement payment of municipal tax is payable either by the tenant or the landlord— Whatsoever is agreed to between the parties can be a term of the tenancy as no prohibition exists in the matter of payment of such tax— Premises Rent Control Ordinance (XX of 1963)Ss.9 and 10. Meherunnessa Khatun Vs. Abdul Lcstif and another; 6BLD(AD)279 |
Meherunnessa Khatun Vs. Abdul Lcstif and another; | 6 BLD (AD) 279 |
Section 23 |
Agreement opposed to law is void—
|
Jahanara Khatun (Most.) Vs. Md. Nurul Mam | 12 MLR (AD) 241 |
Section 23 |
Agreement opposed to public policy is void—
|
World Tel Bangladesh Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Post and Telecommunications and others | 11 MLR (AD) 65 |
Section 23 |
The Word 'public policy' The word 'public policy' is not easy to define but may include any injustice, oppression, restraint of liberty, commerce and natural or legal right, whatever tends to the obstruction of justice or to the violation of the statute and whatever against good morals when made the object of a contract and therefore void and not susceptible of enforcement. World Tel Bangladesh Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh & Ors 20 BLT (AD) 108. |
World Tel Bangladesh Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh & Ors | 20 BLT (AD) 108 |
Section 23 |
Provides that an agreement is lawful unless it is forbidden by law.
Therefore, no suit lies to enforce an illegal contract. The Appellate
Division held that the disproved agreement for lease was void order section
23 of the Contract Act,1872 as its object was not lawful and that having
not being registered was unenforceable and inadmissible in evidence.
|
Md. Monir Hossain (Moni) and another -Vs.- Md. Yousuf and others | 5 ALR (AD) 20 |
Section 23 |
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
|
Banichitra Pratisthan Ltd. =VS= Bilkis Begum | 3 LM (AD) 46 |
Section 24 |
Minor's contract– want of mutuality– An agreement which is void ab initio cannot be validated by ratification. Julhash Mollah (Md) and another vs Ramani Kanta Malo and another 47 DLR (AD) 35. |
Julhash Mollah (Md) and another vs Ramani Kanta Malo and another | 47 DLR (AD) 35 |
Section 24 |
An agreement which is void ab-initio cannot be validated by ratification. Au agreement for sale of the suit land not being enforceable against a minor it cannot been forced against the promisor as well for lack of mutuality. The submission that a contract entered into with a minor is not always void and a minor can ask for its enforcement if it is for his benefit is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Md. Julhash Mollah and another Vs. Ramani Kanta Malo and another, 14 BLD (AD) 263 |
Md. Julhash Mollah and another Vs. Ramani Kanta Malo and another, | 14 BLD (AD) 263 |
Section 28 Exception I |
There is nothing in Exception 1 to section 28 of the Contract Act prohibiting the parties to a contract from choosing a foreign forum under the supervision of a foreign court for arbitrating its disputes. Such contract does not offend the main provision of section 28, because the local Courts still retain the jurisdiction to decide the /is between the parties. Bangladesh Air Service (Pvt) Ltd vs British Airways 49 DLR (AD) 187. |
Bangladesh Air Service (Pvt) Ltd vs British Airways | 49 DLR (AD) 187 |
Section 28 Exception I |
The plea of sovereignty and interest of the country and its citizens, if accepted, will render foreign arbitral jurisdiction absolutely nugatory. Bangladesh Air Service (Pvt) Ltd vs British Airways 49 DLR (AD) 187. |
Bangladesh Air Service (Pvt) Ltd vs British Airways | 49 DLR (AD) 187 |
Section 28 |
Section 28 of the Contract Act makes void only those agreements which absolutely restrict a party to a contract from enforcing the rights under that contract in ordinary tribunals. But this section has no application when a party agrees not to restrict his right of enforcing his rights in the ordinary tribunals but only agrees to a selection of one of those ordinary tribunals in which ordinarily a suit would be tried. [Para-53] Bangladesh Air Service (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. British Airways PLC. 5 BLT (AD)-242 |
Bangladesh Air Service (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. British Airways PLC. | 5 BLT (AD) 242 |
Section 28 |
Foreign Arbitration Clause is an integral part of International Trade and
Commerce
|
Bangladesh Air Service (Pv.) Ltd. Vs. British Airways PLC, | 17 BLD (AD) 249 |
Section 28, Exception 1 |
There is nothing in Exception 1 to section 28 of the Contract Act that prohibits the parties to a contract from choosing a foreign forum under the supervision of a foreign Court for arbitrating their disputes. Such contract does not offend the main provision of section 28 of the Act because the local Courts still retain the jurisdiction to decide the us between the parties. [Per Mustafa kamal, J.] Bangladesh Air Service (Pv.) Ltd. Vs. British Airways PLC, 17 BLD (AD) 249. |
Bangladesh Air Service (Pv.) Ltd. Vs. British Airways PLC, | 17 BLD (AD) 249 |
Section 28, Exception 1 |
Section 28 of the Contract Act deals with making those contracts void which restrict the right of a contracting party from taking legal actions in the ordinary tribunals through usual process of law. Exception (1) to Section 28 of the Contract Act, however, enacts a saving clause in favour of the contracts to refer to arbitration any dispute that may arise between the parties. Hence arbitration clause is protected by Exception (1) to Section 28 of the Contract Act. [Per Latifur Rahman, J.] Bangladesh Air Service (Pv.) Ltd. Vs. British Airways PLC, 17 BLD (AD) 249. |
Bangladesh Air Service (Pv.) Ltd. Vs. British Airways PLC, | 17 BLD (AD) 249 |
Section 31 |
Plaintiff tenants under defendant No. 1 landlord having paid two
installments one of three installments as advance as per a tenancy
agreement for shop rooms of a multi- storied building under construction
and tender of 3rd installment being disputed, the plaintiff instituted the
suit seeking various reliefs. 50% of the advance being paid the landlord
cannot do injustice to the existing tenant contract for construction though
contingent the suit decreed justifiably.
|
Shamsuddin Ahmed Vs. S. M. Harun-Or-Rashid | 1 BLT (AD) 48 |
Section 33 |
Objection against arbitration clause of contract—Not supported by
affidavit—
|
M/S. Badri Narayan Agarwalla Vs. M/S. Pak. Jute Bailers Ltd. (1970) | 22 DLR (SC) 45 |
Section 37 |
The plaintiff being the C & F Agent of the defendant was responsible to
clear the consignment from the Port authority and then make arrangement for
necessary transportation and the equipment that may be required for the
loading and desptach of the consignment and also effect delivery at the
Mills site/godown as fixed by the defendant through its officers and the
goods shall be treated in its possession until the same is delivered at the
destination or the Mills site.
|
M/S. Gramsico Ltd. =VS= Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation | 9 LM (AD) 271 |
Sections 38 and 55 |
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to retain the land without fulfilling
the purpose for which lease was granted and secondly, whether the
government is justified in canceling the lease pursuant to the inquiry
report submitted by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Chittagong.
|
Government of Bangladesh -Vs.- Messers Friends Industries Corporation and others | 12 ALR (AD) 1 |
Section 40 |
It appears that the defendant failed to deliver the goods to the plaintiff in spite of repeated readiness expressed by the plaintiff to lift the goods in payment of balance money according to the contract. But due to the default of the defendant the plaintiff could not succeed. In case the seller insists on delivery to the buyer a quantity of goods less than he contracted to sell, the buyer has got the right to reject them and claim refund of the money paid by him to the seller. In the instant case, the seller failed to show that he was ready to deliver to the buyer the quantity/quality of the goods in good condition contracted to be delivered and, in fact, there is default by the seller and, in such view of the matter, there is no legal reason to authorise the seller to forfeit the good money paid by the buyer and, as such, the action of the seller in the present case in forfeiting the money of the plaintiff cannot stand in the eye of law. National Bank Ltd vs Pragati Industries Ltd 10 BLC (AD) 189. |
National Bank Ltd vs Pragati Industries Ltd | 10 BLC (AD) 189 |
Section 46 |
Since there was no laches on the part of the respondent in the materialisation of the contract the Court has committed no error in making the direction for the payment upon making declaration that the contract contained in the letter of intent with the respondent issued by the petitioner has been breached. Privatisation Board vs AK Fazlul Huq 55 DLR (AD) 11 |
Privatisation Board vs AK Fazlul Huq | 55 DLR (AD) 11 |
Section 46 |
On perusal of the materials on record as well as from the reading of the judgment of the High Court Division it is seen that because of the conduct of the petitioner and that of other agencies of the Government and that non-disclosure of the amount as claimed by the Agrani Bank against the enterprise the contract to sell the enterprise to the petitioner ultimately could not be materialized. It is also seen from the materials on record there was no latches or lapses on the part of the Respondent No.1 in the materialization of the contract but because of the default of the petitioner and other Government agencies in several respects the contract ultimately did not reach finality. Since there was no latches on the part of the Respondent No. I in the materialization of the contract as such High Court Division has committed no error in making the direction for the payment of Tk. 4,00,02,499.75 upon making declaration that the contract contained in the letter of intent dated 11th February, 1999 with the respondent No.1 issued by the petitioner has been breached. Privatization Board Vs. A.K. Faziul Huq & Anr. 10 BLT (AD)95 |
Privatization Board Vs. A.K. Faziul Huq & Anr. | 10 BLT (AD) 95 |
Section 46 |
Time is not essence of contract for sale of land—
|
Haji Abdullah Khan Vs. Nisar Mohammad Khan. (1965) | 17 DLR (SC) 481 |
Section 55 |
Specific performance of contract—When time is the essence of the contract—Where time is intended to be of the essence of the contract, it is not sufficient to find whether here was such intention or not, hut it is necessary to find whose unwillingness to perform his part of the obligation eventually led to the non-performance of the contract—The plaintiff must succeed if his readiness and willingness to perform the obligation undertaken by him are proved even if time is made essence of the contract. Rain Chandra Das and others Vs. Md. Khalilur Rahman and another; 5BLD (AD) 41 |
Rain Chandra Das and others Vs. Md. Khalilur Rahman and another; | 5 BLD (AD) 41 |
Section 55 |
Section 55 of the Contract Act, if it was the intention of the parties that the time should not be of the essence then the contract does not become voidable, but the promisee becomes entitled to receive compensation. Hence, it is our view that the Vendor is only entitled to receive compensation for the delay in performance of the agreement by the Purchaser. .....Mahua Khair =VS= Amena Begum Ali Ispahani, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 246] ....View Full Judgment |
Mahua Khair =VS= Amena Begum Ali Ispahani | 3 LM (AD) 246 |
Section 56 |
Doctrine of frustration—Whether it applies to contract only or to leases also— Whether provision of section 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act or doctrine of frustration as contained in section 56 of the Contract Act will apply in case where the entire structures of the tenancy was destroyed—Where only a material part of the tenancy is destroyed or otherwise rendered substantially and permanently unfit for the purpose for which it was let at the option of the tenant the lease will come to an end—But where the entire subject matter of the tenancy is destroyed the provision of section 108(e) of Transfer of Property Act will not be applicable—The doctrine of frustration as embodied in section 56 of the Contract Act will apply in case of destruction of the entire subject matter of the tenancy—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) S. lO8(c. Azizur Rahman and others Vs. Abdus Sakur and others; 4BLD (AD) 287 |
Azizur Rahman and others Vs. Abdus Sakur and others; | 4 BLD (AD) 287 |
Sections 56, 23 |
Swaranarthapatra–– The Appellate Court found that the plaintiff admitted in her deposition that “the writer read out the contents of Chuktipatra after writing, i.e, she heard the recitals of the Chuktipatra and they put their signatures in the same. Therefore, she is stopped from saying anything contradictory to the Chuktipatra. The land described in the schedule in the plaint is not identical to that of the alleged Chuktipatra. Thus the suit was not properly framed and the plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief sought for. ––The High Court Division while passing the impugned judgment came to a definite finding that on perusal of the 2(two) Exhibits it appears that “Exhibit-1 is part of Exhibit-B and from the contents of these two documents, it appears that the defendant No.1 did not enter into any contract directly with the plaintiff for selling the suit land.” The particular fact that Exhibit-1 (bainapatra) and Exhibit-B (Swaranarthapatra) were executed and signed on the same date although not between the same parties but if we go through both the documents together then the intention of the parties could be understand and the ulterior motive of parties cannot be ignored. This is the reason why the documents cannot be treated separately. Moreover, defendant No.1 was not in a position to enter into the contract voluntarily and free consent is an integral part to enter into a valid contract. ‘Free consent’ is clearly defined in the Contract Act and it cannot be said that there was no undue influence over defendant No.1 from the part of the father of the plaintiff because of the defendant’s unsafe situation existing then. ––Appellate Division does not find any merit in the appeal. As such the findings and decision arrived at by based on proper appreciation of both fact and law the same does not call for any interference by this Division. .....Mosammat Momtaz Begum =VS= Santosh Kumar Sarker, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 546] ....View Full Judgment |
Mosammat Momtaz Begum =VS= Santosh Kumar Sarker | 14 LM (AD) 546 |
Section 56 |
Doctrine of Frustration
|
Md. Mokbul Hossain Khandker Vs. Mst. Jaheda Khatun, | 15 BLD (AD) 185 |
Section 56 |
Doctrine of frustration—When applicable—
|
Azizur Rahman Vs. Abdus Sakur (1984) | 36 DLR (AD) 195 |
Section 56 |
Frustration of Contract—
|
Sooraya Rahman vs Hajee Md Elias and others | 8 BLC (AD) 7 |
Sections 62 and 70 |
Novation of contract and corn pensation—Assurance to contractor for enhanced rate of remuneration—Assurance amounted to novation of contract or caused entitlement to fair compensation—After the contractor’s work as clearing and forwarding agent was finished and benefit there from was derived, the defendant T & T Board cannot get away without paying some remuneration on the basis of -as surance—The case would have been other had the contractor’s claim been rejected other wise—it is true, some meeting of minds the parties to a contract is necessary for novation of contract—But consent may also be-applied by conduct of the parties—In this ca conduct of the defendants although shows the. they recognised the difficulties the appellant was put into difficulties because of their o laches—Prolonged dialogues clearly indicate that the appellants claim for enhancement the rate got same merits—He is entitled to remuneration on the basis fair and reasonable rate. Baziur Rahinan Vs. People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others; 10 BLD(AD)66 |
Baziur Rahinan Vs. People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others; | 10 BLD (AD) 66 |
Section 63 |
Extension of time—
|
Abdul Jalil Chowdhury Vs. Mohammadi Steamship Co. Ltd. (1961) | 13 DLR (SC) 214 |
Section 73 |
The principle of award of compensation is that the injured party should as
far as possible be placed in the same position in terms of money as if the
contract had been performed by the party in default.
|
The Project Director, P.L. and another. -Vs.- Latiff Company Ltd. | 14 ALR (AD) 45 |
Section 73 |
In an appropriate case a Court of Law can apply and imply warranty, as distinguished from an express contract or express warranty, on the presumed intention of the parties and upon reason. Hutchison Telecom Bangladesh Ltd vs Bangladesh Telegraph and Telephone Board and others 48 DLR (AD) 30. |
Hutchison Telecom Bangladesh Ltd vs Bangladesh Telegraph and Telephone Board and others | 48 DLR (AD) 30 |
Sections 73 & 124 |
The remedy under these provisions of the Contract Act lies in the Civil Court, if at all, not under the Admiralty Jurisdiction on a Marine Hull Policy. Sadharan Bima Corporation vs Bengal Liner Ltd and another 48 DLR (AD) 143. |
Sadharan Bima Corporation vs Bengal Liner Ltd and another | 48 DLR (AD) 143 |
Section 73 |
Section- 73 provides for compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. It provides further that such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. [Para- 12] Sonali Bank Vs. M/S Kamaphuli Works Ltd. 2BLT (AD)-78 |
Sonali Bank Vs. M/S Kamaphuli Works Ltd. | 2 BLT (AD) 78 |
Section 73 |
Breach of contract—Damages—All sorts of damages are not entertainable—In assessing damages only the circumstances resulting from the breach of contract are to he taken into consideration. Al-Sayer Navigation Co. Vs. Delta International Traders Ltd. & others; and Delta international Traders Ltd. Vs. M. V. Kuan Hal renamed M. V. Al-Sayer; 2 BLD(AD)69 ....View Full Judgment |
Al-Sayer Navigation Co. Vs. Delta International Traders Ltd. & others; and Delta international Traders Ltd. Vs. M. V. Kuan Hal renamed M. V. Al-Sayer; | 2 BLD (AD) 69 |
Section 73 |
Shipping Law—Delay in carriage—Remoteness of damage—Loss of profit—Loss of profit recoverable as damages for breach of lie contract of carriage by deviation involving delay—Loss of market will be found to be within the contemplation of the parties in car— ‘age of goods by sea—When ship was incapable of performing the voyage within the pulated period due to any fault in the ship, the carrier must face the consequence—Carriers ‘here apprised of the salt crisis and urgency mediate shipment—Carrier must be saddled with liability. Al-Sayer Navigation Co. Vs. Delta International Traders Ltd. & others; and Delta international Traders Ltd. Vs. M. V. Kuan Hai renamed M.D. Al-Sayer; 2BLD(AD)69 ....View Full Judgment |
Al-Sayer Navigation Co. Vs. Delta International Traders Ltd. & others; and Delta international Traders Ltd. Vs. M. V. Kuan Hal renamed M. V. Al-Sayer; | 2 BLD (AD) 69 |
Section 73 |
Suit for damage or compensation for breach of contract—
|
Alimuzzainan Khan (Md.) Vs. Mohammad Golam Kibria | 11 MLR (AD) 149 |
Section 73 |
Counter claim based on remote and indirect consequence is not
admissible—
|
Saudi Arabian Air Lines Corporation, represented by its Conn try Manager Vs. M/S Saudi Bangladesh Services Company Ltd, represented by its Managing Director | 15 MLR (AD) 153 |
Section 73 |
Suit for compensation-maintainability—
|
M/s Nozrul Islam Khan & Co. (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Festasi Shipping Company S.A and others. | 2 MLR (AD) 369 |
Section 73 |
Contract Act
|
Md. Mahbubur Rahman Vs. Bangladesh and Others | 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 104 |
Section 74 |
Forfeiture of earnest money in a contract for sale of property by auction
sale on failure to deposit the consideration/bid money within stipulated
time—
|
Mesbahiiddin Ahmed Vs. M/S nines Finlay | 12 MLR (AD) 253 |
Section 92(b) |
An acceptance must be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the manner in which it is to be accepted. Bangladesh Moktijoddah Kalyan Trust represented by the Managing Director vs Kamal Trading Agency and others 50 DLR (AD) 171. |
Bangladesh Moktijoddah Kalyan Trust represented by the Managing Director vs Kamal Trading Agency and others | 50 DLR (AD) 171 |
Section 124 |
The High Court Division held that whatever might be the consideration of the defendant in delivering the disputed consignment to the buyer consignee, it must be done at its own risk and peril and thus the action of the defendant No. 1, carrier could not be absolved from its responsibility to the consignor. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court in Money Suit No. 3 of 1992 decreeing the suit. Nippon Liner System vs Mahi Fish Processing Ltd 11 BLC (AD) 124. |
Nippon Liner System vs Mahi Fish Processing Ltd | 11 BLC (AD) 124 |
Section 126 |
Bank guarantee—Bank under-taking to pay on the failure of performance of contract— No temporary injunction restraining the enforcement of the guarantee—Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) Or. 39 R.1 Uttara Bank Vs. Macneill & Kilburn Ltd. and others; 1BLD(AD)230 |
Uttara Bank Vs. Macneill & Kilburn Ltd. and others; | 1 BLD (AD) 230 |
Section 128 |
Guarantor’s liability as regards repayment of loan—The guarantor is not only responsible for repayment of the loan, his liability to repay need not even be postponed till the principal debtor fails to repay the loan—The choice lies with the creditor. M/s. M.M. Ispahani Ltd. Vs. Sonali Bank and others; 4 BLD(AD)242 |
M/s. M.M. Ispahani Ltd. Vs. Sonali Bank and others; | 4 BLD (AD) 242 |
Section 141 |
Repayment of loan—Denying the liability on the ground that the security has been taken away—When a person contracts a loan from a banking institution by offering valuable security but retaining its possession with itself, if cannot possibly lie in its mouth to deny the liability on the ground that the security has been lost or it had parted with its possession under compulsion—For such loss or taking away of the security persons or bodies who are responsible for it may be liable but such a plea is not sufficient to absolve the person or its obligation to repay the loan. M/s. M.M. Ispahani Ltd. Vs. Sonali Bank and others; 4BLD (AD) 242 |
M/s. M.M. Ispahani Ltd. Vs. Sonali Bank and others; | 4 BLD (AD) 242 |
Sections 151 and 161 |
Liability of the Port Authority to pay compensation for non-delivery of
goods— When the Shipping Company had delivered the goods the Port
Authority must be deemed to be the agent for the consignee—The liability
of the Port Authority is that of a bailee—They
|
The Chittagong Port Authority Vs. Md. Ishaque and others: | 3 BLD (AD) 338 |
Section 170 |
The plaintiff did not make out any case under section 170 of the Act to
retain the goods as a bailee.
|
Muhammad Meah vs Pubali Bank | 41 DLR (AD) 14 |
Section 170 |
(Minority view) Per BH Chowdhury– Section 170 says lien exists in the absence of a contract to the contrary. This question has agitated the minds of the English Judges and the law was surveyed in Tappenden vs Antus (1964) 2 QBD 185=1963 All ER 213. Muhammad Meah vs Pubali Bank 41 DLR (AD) 14. ....View Full Judgment |
Muhammad Meah vs Pubali Bank | 41 DLR (AD) 14 |
Section 170 |
Lien cannot be a ground for action, it can be taken as defence. Lien cannot be a ground for action, it can be taken as defence. Prcisely that was done here in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No.1 which was brought to the Bank . Here the plaintiff can raise the point of lien in the face of the application for releasing the attached properties. And that has happened in this case. Muhammad Meah vs Pubali Bank 41 DLR (AD) 14. |
Muhammad Meah vs Pubali Bank | 41 DLR (AD) 14 |
Section 170 |
Under section 170 of the Contract Act a ship breaker can retain goods for his remuneration. (Minority view) The bank granted the loan for buying the ship and the ship is to be scrapped and the scrap is to be sold in the market and the sale proceeds is to be deposited into cash credit account for liquidating the debt. Unless the ship is broken how the debt is to be liquidated? Therefore, the question comes what about the remuneration of the ship breaker and the law says in section 170 of the Contract Act that he can retain such goods. Muhammad Meah vs Pubali Bank 41 DLR (AD) 14. |
Muhammad Meah vs Pubali Bank | 41 DLR (AD) 14 |
Section 170 |
(Minority Judgment) Per BH Chowdhury J–Execution of decree when all the
properties are mortgaged to the Bank–Application of section 170 of the
Contract Act–Plaintiffs claim on lien–Remuneration of the breaker –
Omission to mention the word "lien" by the plaintiff–Effect of–Rule
of pleading does not warrant it.
|
Muhammad Meah vs Pubali Bank | 41 DLR (AD) 14 |
Section 170 |
Bailee’s Lien—Question of bailee’s right to retain goods and have order of attachment— The plaintiff (bailee) could have exercised the right of lien under the Contract Act if he had possession over the scheduled materials—The High Court Division’s findings that the Bank had been in possession of the attached goods will preclude him from relying on the cited decisions in support of his claim to retain the scheduled properties as a bailee—His application for attachment itself indicates that he was not in possession of the goods—Had he been in possession. he would have asked for an order of injunction, and not for attachment—Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) Or. 38 Rules 5 and 8. Mohaminad Meah Vs. Pubali Bank and others; 9 BLD(AD) 57. |
Mohaminad Meah Vs. Pubali Bank and others; | 9 BLD (AD) 57 |
Section 171 |
Claim and counter–claim between the petitioner and the Agrani Bank–
Petitioner (appellant) claimed a sum of Taka 75,55,020.28 paisa after
adjustment in the suitTrial Court allowed prayer for mandatory
injunction–Appellant contended that the import passbook issued by the
CCIE could not be a security for the purpose of Banker's general lien
within the meaning of section 171 of the Contract Act–High Court Division
issued order directing the petitioner to furnish security to the extent of
the claim of the bank whereupon the defendant Bank is to return the import
passbook either to the CCIE or to the nominated bank of the petitioner and
set aside the order of mandatory injunction.
|
The Dhaka Dyeing and Manufacturing Co vs Agrani Bank | 42 DLR (AD) 60 |
Section 176 |
Law relating to the right of the pawnee does not require him to sell the pawned goods first and thereafter, if any amount remains due from the pawnor then to file the suit for the realisation thereof. Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd vs Sub–Judge and Additional Artha Rin Adalat and others 55 DLR (AD) 121 |
Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd vs Sub–Judge and Additional Artha Rin Adalat and others | 55 DLR (AD) 121 |
Section 176 |
Bailee’s pica of equity and pawnee’s right—Whether the Court could uphold the order of attachment in favour of the bailee as otherwise he will be left without any remedy- In this case equity is not in favour of the plaintiff (bai lee )—From the facts and circumstances of the case it is to be held that plaintiff knew about the defendant’s transaction that the vessel with all its materials was pledged with the Bank—Under the Contract Act and the terms of transaction the Bank is free to follow any of the ways legally available for realisation of its dues and the plea that the Bank ought to have proceeded against other securities has got no substance—The Court will refrain from making any officious direction to follow a particular secuirty. Mohaininad Meah Vs. Pubali Bank and others; 9BLD (AD)57. |
Mohaininad Meah Vs. Pubali Bank and others; | 9 BLD (AD) 57 |
Section 182 |
The Appellate Division held that the essential element, in an agent's
position. The functions of the agent are-(a) to do any act for the
principal, or (b) to represent the principal in dealings with third
persons. In determining the legal nature of the relationship between the
principal and agent, the use of the word agent is not conclusive. According
to the definition, an agent never acts on his own behalf but always on
behalf of another either represents his principal in any transaction or
dealing with a third person, or performs any act for the principal. In
either case, the act of the agent is not his own out of the principal.
|
Marium Dawood -Vs.- Mr. Iqbaluddin Chowdhury | 9 ALR (AD) 239 |
Section 201 |
On demise of either party to the power of attorney the relationship between the principal and the attorney ceases. Abdur Rahman (Md) vs Md Iqbal Ahmed and others 49 DLR (AD) 142. |
Abdur Rahman (Md) vs Md Iqbal Ahmed and others | 49 DLR (AD) 142 |
Section 201 |
Termination of Agency-Power of Attorney
|
Md. Abdur Rahman Vs Md. lqbal Ahmed and others, | 17 BLD (AD) 175 |
Section 209 |
This section does not purport to confer any power on the agent. It simply
imposes an obligation on the agent to take all reasonable steps in the
interest the representatives of the principal.
|
Marium Dawood -Vs.- Mr. Iqbaluddin Chowdhury | 9 ALR (AD) 239 |
Section 211, 221 |
The Constitution of Bangladesh
|
Government of Bangladesh =VS= M/s. Excellent Corporation | 8 LM (AD) 215 |
Section 219 |
This section states when the agent's right to remuneration accrues. It provides that in the absence of any special contract, payment for performance of any act is not due to the agent until the competion of the assignment . The agent, however, may retain moneys received by him on account of goods sold, although the whole of the goods consigned to him for sale may not have been sold. Government Of Bangladesh -Vs.- M/s. Excellent Corporation 2 ALR (2013)(AD) 42 |
Government Of Bangladesh -Vs.- M/s. Excellent Corporation | 2 ALR (AD) 42 |
Statutory contract–– |
The Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
|
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Golam Mustafa | 14 LM (AD) 523 |
Damage for breach of contract— |
Damage for breach of contract—
|
M/S. Amiii Jute Mills Vs. M/S. A.R.A.G. (1976) | 28 DLR (SC) 76 |
The Registration Act, 1908
|
Comprehensive Holdings Ltd. =VS= MH Khan Monju | 3 LM (AD) 198 |