Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
High Court Division Rules, 1973 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Rule 3(d) |
The High Court Division observed that a departmental proceedings was initiated against the respondent which has been taken without approval of the G.A. committee, and the same was a mandatory provision of law and that the Chief Justice without taking the matter to the G.A. Committee had accorded the approval. On perusal of the record the High Court Division noticed that there was an endorsement at the bottom of the note-sheet with a note of the Chief Justice ‘yes’ and this proved that the Chief Justice accorded the approval violating rule 3(d) of the High Court Division Rules. This court perused the record and found that this observation was correct but that itself is not a ground for interference. It should be borne in mind that in urgent matters, sometimes the Chief Justice gives approval in respect of some proposals without placing the matter before the G.A. committee, because the calling such meeting takes time and in urgent matters the Chief Justice accords permission subject to the approval of the committee later on. In this case inadvertently the matter has not been placed before the G.A. Committee. In order to avoid more harm to the judiciary, the Chief Justice takes such decision. The Chief Justice being the head of the judiciary is respected by the Judges and his opinion with regard to the superintendence and control over the lower judiciary has primacy and is being honoured by the Judges of the committee. This is a practice being followed by this Court and non-approval of the decision of the Chief Justice was merely an irregularity and not an illegality and this will not vitiate the decision. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Sontosh Kumar Shaha, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 143] ....View Full Judgment |
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Sontosh Kumar Shaha | 4 LM (AD) 143 |
Rule 3(d) |
The High Court Division observed that a departmental proceedings was initiated against the respondent which has been taken without approval of the G.A. committee, and the same was a mandatory provision of law and that the Chief Justice without taking the matter to the G.A. Committee had accorded the approval. On perusal of the record the High Court Division noticed that there was an endorsement at the bottom of the note-sheet with a note of the Chief Justice ‘yes’ and this proved that the Chief Justice accorded the approval violating rule 3(d) of the High Court Division Rules. This court perused the record and found that this observation was correct but that itself is not a ground for interference. It should be borne in mind that in urgent matters, sometimes the Chief Justice gives approval in respect of some proposals without placing the matter before the G.A. committee, because the calling such meeting takes time and in urgent matters the Chief Justice accords permission subject to the approval of the committee later on. In this case inadvertently the matter has not been placed before the G.A. Committee. In order to avoid more harm to the judiciary, the Chief Justice takes such decision. The Chief Justice being the head of the judiciary is respected by the Judges and his opinion with regard to the superintendence and control over the lower judiciary has primacy and is being honoured by the Judges of the committee. This is a practice being followed by this Court and non-approval of the decision of the Chief Justice was merely an irregularity and not an illegality and this will not vitiate the decision. …Bangladesh & ors Vs Sontosh Kumar Shaha & ors, (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] AD 1 ....View Full Judgment |
Bangladesh & ors Vs Sontosh Kumar Shaha & ors | 6 SCOB [2016] AD 1 |
Chapter-X, Rule 4 |
High Court Division Rules, 1973
|
Johora Bibi and others-Vs.-Tozammal Hossain and others | 6 ALR (AD) 213 |
Chapter XIA, rule 14(1) |
Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) Rules, 1973 The Supreme Court (High Court Division) Rules 1973 under Chapter-XIA Rule 14(1) it is specifically provided that if the respondent(s) intends to controvert any statement(s) made in the petition and/or any documents) annexed thereto, he can do so by filing an affidavit-in-opposition; meaning thereby, in the absence of any affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondents the statements made in the writ-petition shall remain uncontroverted. .....Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh =VS= Borak Real Estate (Pvt) Ltd. , (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 35] ....View Full Judgment |
Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh =VS= Borak Real Estate (Pvt) Ltd. | 13 LM (AD) 35 |
High Court Division Jurisdiction– |
High Court Division Jurisdiction–
|
Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd. =VS= Bengal Techno Leather Ltd. | 10 LM (AD) 41 |