National University terminated the service of 988 Officers and employees— Review petition filed by a third party— In Bangladesh, the period of limitation is 20(twenty) days for the review of judgment by the High Court Division in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, as provided in the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908 (at serial number 162). In Pakistan, an application for review is required to be filed within 30(thirty) days of the pronouncement of judgment, as provided in Part IV, Order XLVII, Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2025. In India, the said period is 30(thirty) days from the date of the judgment and order sought to be reviewed, as provided in Part-IV, Order XLVII, Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. In USA, Rule 44 of the Supreme Court Rule stipulates that any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25(twenty five) days after entry of the judgment or decision.
Regrettably, that is precisely what has been done in the instant case. As neither the petitioner nor the National University had preferred any appeal against the judgment dated 22.08.2006 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.5125 of 2004, the matter ought to have ended there. Unfortunately, it did not. Four years after the pronouncement of judgment by the High Court Division, on the basis of a review petition filed by a third party, the matter was reopened again, and resultantly, the petitioners were made to face an uncertain future vis-a-vis their career and, of course, their livelihood along with their family members, putting them in dire straits, both financially and socially, for well over a decade. Appellate Division has noted, albeit with some degree of anxiety and sorrow, as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Md. Salah Uddin Dolon that some of the petitioners had passed away during the pendency of the instant appeal. The manner in which the case was dealt with, first by the High Court Division and subsequently by this Division, adversely affecting not only the career, but also the livelihood of nearly one thousand Officers and employees of National University was, in my view, an act of “judicial tyranny”. The National University, Gazipur is directed to take necessary steps to reinstate the petitioners in the respective posts in which they had been serving prior to their termination from service, in accordance with the decision taken by the Syndicate of the National University. .....National University =VS= Mohammad Abu Hanif, (Civil), 2025(2) [19 LM (AD) 7] ....View Full Judgment

Constitution of Bangladesh
Article 102 and
Supreme Court (High Court Division) Rules, 1973
Chapter XIA
The High Court Division erred in law in travelling beyond the scope/terms of the Rules Nisi:
The person who wants to invoke article 102 must be an aggrieved person and must specify the relief in his prayers. Chapter XIA of the Supreme Court (High Court Division) Rules, deals with preparing and filing of writ petition under article 102 of the Constitution. It provides that the aggrieved person must specifically set out the relief sought for. So, the writ petitioner must have specific claim in the form of prayer against such persons who are respondents, following which the Court can grant relief, if favourable, in accordance with law. In the present cases, the High Court Division has delivered the impugned judgment and order basing on the “জাতীয়করনকৃত কলেজ শিক্ষক ও অশিক্ষক কর্মচারী আত্মীকরন বিধিমালা-২০১৮” by which the earlier Rules of 2000 has been repealed and thereby directed the writ respondent-leave petitioner herein to absorb the writ petitioners-respondents herein as Lecturers in their concerned Government Colleges despite of the fact that the writ petitioners did not make any such claim in the form of prayer in the writ petition asking absorption under the aforesaid absorption Rules of 2018 nor the Rules Nisi were issued at that effect. As such, the High Court Division erred in law in travelling beyond the scope/terms of the Rules Nisi in both the writ petitions in giving relief to the writ petitioners while passing the impugned judgment and order. ...Bangladesh & ors Vs. Sk. Md. Abdullah Faruque & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] AD 54 ....View Full Judgment

Trade Mark Act, 2009; Section 2(12), 100
Trade Mark Rules, 2015 Rule 10, 14, 15 and 50(1)
Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) Rules, 1973
Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh; Article 107(1)
Code of Civil Procedure Order XLI Rule 1, Order XLIII Rule 2
Limitation Act, 1908 (1st Schedule) Section 5, 29(2) and Article 156
Since Bangladesh Supreme Court (High Court Division) Rules, 1973 does not prescribe any time limit for preferring appeal before the High Court Division against the order passed by the Registrar under the Act, 2009 as such, the time frame as prescribed in Rule 50(1) of the Rules of 2015 is applicable. ...Kazi Md. Kamrul Islam Vs. Registrar, Dep. of PDTM & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 1 ....View Full Judgment