Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (HCD)
Evidence Act, 1872 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Sections 20 and 21 |
Admission by persons expressly referred to by party to suit and proof of
admissions, against persons making them, and by or on their behalf.
|
Sontosh Kumar Chowdhury and others-Vs.-Pranab Kumar Chakraborty and others | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 401 |
Section 45 |
Medical Evidence:
|
The State -Vs- 1. Md. Nasiruddin @ Anik | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 275 |
section 45 |
Section 7K of the Arbitration Act of 2001:
|
Anamika Corp. Ltd. & ors Vs. Humayun M. Chowdhury & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 119 |
Section 64 and 65 |
Section 64 of the Evidence Act, 1872 states that documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned. Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the court. In the instant case, no original document was produced before the court and during the investigation, the investigating officer also did not seize any original document. The secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or the contents of the document in the cases mentioned in section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The prosecution failed to prove any of the exception mentioned in section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872. .....Md. Nurul Islam Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 146 ....View Full Judgment |
.Md. Nurul Islam Vs. The State & anr | 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 146 |
Section 65 |
যখন কোনো দলিলের মূল কপি নষ্ট হয়ে যায়, হারিয়ে যায় ইত্যাদি তখন সেই দলিলটি সহি মহুরী নকল দিয়ে প্রমান করা যায়। সুতরাং যেহেতু উপরিল্লিখিত তালাশীপত্র মোতাবেক (প্রদর্শনী-৮ ও ১১) রেন্ট স্যুটের মূল নথি ধ্বংস করে দেওয়া হয়েছে এবং বয়নামা, দখলনামা এবং স্যুট রেজিষ্ট্রারের সহি মহুরী নকলসমূহ মামলা রজু হওয়ার ৩০ বছর পূর্ব উত্তোলিত এবং যেহেতু আমাদের পরীক্ষান্তে উক্ত প্রদর্শনী সমূহ জাল জালিয়াতির মাধ্যমে সৃষ্ট বলে প্রতীয়মান হয় না এবং জাল জালিয়াতির মাধ্যমে সৃষ্ট রয়েছে মর্মে বিবাদী পক্ষ কোনো ধরনের সাক্ষ্য দাখিল করতে পারে নাই, সেহেতু এই তিনটি প্রদর্শিত দলিল সমূহ (প্রদর্শনী-২, ৩ এবং ৪) বিশ্বাস না করা বা তাদের উপর নির্ভর না করার কোনো যৌক্তিক কারণ খুঁজে পাচ্ছি না। সেহেতু আমরা মনে করি, বিচারিক আদালত এই তিনটি এবং আরো কিছু দলিলিক সাক্ষ্যের উপর ভিত্তি করে নিলাম বিক্রয়ের বিষয়টি করেন এবং প্রমাণিত হওয়া মর্মে যে সিদ্ধান্ত নিয়েছেন তা হস্তক্ষেপ করা কোনো বৈধ ও আইনসঙ্গত কারণ নাই। ... Abdul Latif Vs. Mohammad Kamal Uddin and others (আব্দুল লতিফ –বনাম- মোহাম্মদ কামাল উদ্দীন এবং অন্যান্য), (Civil), 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 27 ....View Full Judgment |
Abdul Latif Vs. Mohammad Kamal Uddin and others (আব্দুল লতিফ –বনাম- মোহাম্মদ কামাল উদ্দীন এবং অন্যান্য) | 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 27 |
Section 66 |
The prosecution proved the photocopy of alleged letter of admission of guilt of the accused Md. Nurul Islam as exhibit-1 and the photocopy of the deposit slips as exhibit-II. No original letter of admission of guilt and deposit slip was proved by the prosecution. Admittedly all the documents lie with the Sonali Bank Ltd. Neither the investigating officer seized those documents nor any original document was proved by the prosecution. Furthermore, the investigation officer PW. 9 Rabindranath Chaki stated that seized documents were not attested by any officer of the bank. The prosecution failed to give any explanation under section 66 of the Evidence Act, 1872 for not producing original documents. No evidence was adduced by the prosecution to show that the original document was lying with the accused Md. Nurul Islam. Therefore, exhibits- 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Special Case No. 8 of 2012, exhibits- 2 to 7 in Special Case No. 9 of 2012, and exhibits 1 to 5 in Special Case No. 10 of 2012 are not admissible in evidence. .....Md. Nurul Islam Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 146 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Nurul Islam Vs. The State & anr | 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 146 |
Section 68 |
Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act: The law on attesting witness is guided by section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The scribe will not be an attesting witness unless he intends to sign the deed as such. In other words a scribe can play the dual role of a scribe and an attesting witness. ...Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 ....View Full Judgment |
Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 |
Section 80 |
Code of Criminal Procedure [V of 1898]
|
The State -Vs- 1. Md. Nasiruddin @ Anik | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 275 |
Section 90 |
Record of rights:
|
Md. Rofiqul Islam & ors Vs. Md. Khalilur Rahman & ors | 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 29 |
Section 91 and 92 |
We are surprised that the Courts below did not take these rent receipts into any consideration at all and which are relevant documentary evidences. Instead, as is obvious from their findings, the Courts below have erroneously and unlawfully relied upon oral evidences bypassing the documentary evidences and which they are barred from doing under the law. Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act expressly bar the reliance upon oral evidences where documentary evidences are there on record. ...Syed Aynul Akhter Vs. Sanjit Kumar Bhowmik & ors, (Civil), 4 SCOB [2015] HCD 127 ....View Full Judgment |
Syed Aynul Akhter Vs. Sanjit Kumar Bhowmik & ors | 4 SCOB [2015] HCD 127 |
Section 92 |
Oral evidence is inadmissible to vary the contents of document but in the
present case not challenge the contents of the documents but nature of
transaction which object was to defeat the statutory right of the
co-sharer. Therefore, the co-sharer challenged the nature of the transfer
in that view of the matter the facts and circumstances of the present case
is hit but the proviso (1) of the section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
|
Abdul Hakim Siddique -Vs.- Mst. Shakhina Bewa and others | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 102 |
Sections 91 and 92 |
When a document is meant merely on an informal memorandum of transaction
and not as a document embodying disposition of property, oral evidence is
not excluded.
|
Abdul Hakim Siddique -Vs.- Mst. Shakhina Bewa and others | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 102 |
Sections 101 and 103 |
According to the provisions laid down in sections 101 and 103 of the Evidence Act, the entire onus was upon the plaintiffs to prove that the signatures given by Rustom Howlader in all the documents are false because it is their specific case that Rustom Howlader never appeared in public due to his serious ailment and indisposition and blindness and even he was to be taken to the toilet by somebody else and remained bed ridden from 1980 until his death. Plaintiffs had to take resort to expert opinion in order to discharge their initial onus under section 101 of the Evidence Act to prove that those impugned documents were executed not by Rustom Howlader but by an imposter with a scheme to grab the property and Rustom Howlader was completely unable to perform his own affairs due to his serious illness. Law says when the initial onus is discharged by the plaintiff the onus then shifts upon the defendants to show the contrary. ...Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 ....View Full Judgment |
Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 |
Section 102 |
Burden of proof:
|
Abedun Nessa Vs. Jaher Sheikh and others | 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 37 |
Section 103 |
In a civil proceeding both the parties have responsibility to prove their respective cases, although onus rests upon the plaintiff to prove his case but responsibility of the defendant is also there to substantiate his written statement’s assertion as per section 103 of the Evidence Act. But the courts below shifted the responsibility to prove the case entirely upon the plaintiffs which cannot be sustained. ...Hayetullah & ors. Vs. Abdul Khaleque & ors., (Civil), 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 309 ....View Full Judgment |
Hayetullah & ors. Vs. Abdul Khaleque & ors. | 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 309 |
section 106 |
এই ঋণাত্মক দায় নীতিমালাটি প্রযোজ্য হওয়ার পূর্বে দুটি প্রাথমিক বিষয় রাষ্ট্রপক্ষকে যুক্তিসংগত সন্দেহ বহির্ভূতভাবে প্রমাণ করতে হবে। তা হলো মামলায় নিহত ব্যক্তিটি বা ভিকটিম আসামীর হেফাজতে ছিল এবং ঘটনার সময় ঘটনাস্থলে আসামী এবং ঐ ভিকটিম একত্রে ছিল। সেইক্ষেত্রে এটি যে তথাকথিত স্ত্রী হত্যাকান্ড (Wife Killing Case) নীতিমালা অর্থাৎ ঋণাত্মক দায় নীতিমালা প্রযোজ্য হবে। ...State Vs. Abdullah @Titumir @Titu, (Criminal), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 ....View Full Judgment |
State Vs. Abdullah @Titumir @Titu | 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 |
section 106 |
ঋণাত্মক দায় ও নরহত্যাঃ
|
State Vs. Abdullah @Titumir @Titu | 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 |
section 106 |
যেখানে ময়নাতদন্ত
প্রতিবেদনে নরহত্যাজনিত (Homicidal
in nature) লেখা থাকেনা সেখানে
পারিপার্শ্বিক অবস্থা দেখে
আদালতকেই নির্ধারণ করতে হবে
এটি নরহত্যাজনিত মৃত্যু
কিনাঃ
|
State Vs. Abdullah @Titumir @Titu | 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 |
Section 114(e) |
Presumption of regularity of the official acts and burden of proof in such
cases:
|
Md. Mominul Islam Vs. Bangladesh & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 108 |
Section 114(g), section 85, Section 120 |
Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act; Order 3 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure read with section 85 of the Evidence Act; Section 120 of the
Evidence Act:
|
Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 |
Section 114(e) |
It has been asserted in paragraph Nos. 14(ka)(6) of the written statement that Rustom Howlader filed Title Suit No. 126 of 1996 against Thana Education Officer, Madaripur and filed application for temporary injunction not to remove the Char Ghunshi Government Primary School. The temporary injunction was rejected against which Rustom Howlader filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 41 of 1996 in the Court of District Judge, Madaripur. The appeal failed. Then he preferred Civil Revision No. 3104 of 1998 before this Court. The Rule issuing order dated 09.08.1998 is exhibit-Ja and after his death his substituted heirs extended the order of status quo till disposal of the rule on 21.08.2000 which is exhibit-Ja(1). Those are public documents and under section 114(e) of the Evidence Act carry presumptive value of its contents and it is to be presumed that Rustom Howlader sworn affidavit in exhibit-Ja until and unless the contrary is proved by reliable evidence and thus it appears that he was never that sick as has been alleged by the plaintiffs. ...Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 ....View Full Judgment |
Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 |
Section 114(e) |
The admission of Rustom Howlader that he executed those documents cannot be avoided when plaintiffs could not establish a definite and clear case on Rustom Howlader’s sickness. The execution is admitted and plaintiff had no knowledge on execution or passing of consideration being third party to the document. Plaintiffs cannot question about the consideration because it was between parties to the document. The transferee is to prove the payment of consideration when the transferor challenges the same. In the instant case, if the plaintiffs could prove by cogent and credible evidence that Rustom Howlader was seriously ill and blind from 1980 till his death, in that case the onus would lie upon the defendant to prove the payment of consideration. ...Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 ....View Full Judgment |
Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 |
Section 115 |
From a close reading of Section 115 of the Evidence Act ..., it is quite clear that the legislature does not allow a person from retracting or denying anything that which he might intentionally have said or done either verbally or by action or by omission and the consequence of which might have led some other person to rely on such as true or act upon such belief. This is as we find is clearly barred under the law. It is also significant to note that the bar is not confined to a particular type or class of suits but it applies to ‘any’ suit or proceeding be it Civil or Criminal whatever may be the nature, class or category of the suit or proceeding. It is evident from perusal of the same that Section 115 in no way distinguishes or otherwise makes any distinction between Civil and Criminal Proceedings. From the language of Section 115 itself it is evident that it applies to all proceedings. ...Md. Sadek Hossain & ors Vs. Most. Azmeri Begum and ors., (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 112 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Sadek Hossain & ors Vs. Most. Azmeri Begum and ors. | 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 112 |
Section 115 |
বিবাদী পক্ষ অথবা তাদের বায়াগন বিভিন্ন ক্রয় কবুলিয়তে নালিশী সম্পত্তি নিলাম বিক্রয়ের বিষয়টি কোনো না কোনোভাবে স্বীকার করে নিয়েছেন। এ প্রসঙ্গে প্রদর্শনী-১৩খ, ১৪খ এবং ১৪গ দৃষ্ট প্রতীয়মান হয় যে, বিবাদী ও বিবাদীর বায়াগন নালিশী সম্পত্তি নিলামের বিষয়টি মেনে নিয়েই সি.এস. ৪৬০ নং খতিয়ানের অধীন বিভিন্ন সম্পত্তির ক্রয় এবং বন্দোবস্তী নিয়েছেন। তাই সেই নিলাম ক্রয় সম্পর্কে বা অনুষ্ঠিত হওয়া সম্পর্কে বিবাদী পক্ষের ওজর আপত্তির ক্ষেত্রটি অত্যন্ত দুর্বল এই প্রসঙ্গে সাক্ষ্য আইনের ১১৫ ধারা তথা এসটোপেল নীতিটি প্রণিধানযোগ্য। ...Abdul Latif Vs. Mohammad Kamal Uddin and others (আব্দুল লতিফ –বনাম- মোহাম্মদ কামাল উদ্দীন এবং অন্যান্য), (Civil), 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 27 ....View Full Judgment |
Abdul Latif Vs. Mohammad Kamal Uddin and others (আব্দুল লতিফ –বনাম- মোহাম্মদ কামাল উদ্দীন এবং অন্যান্য) | 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 27 |
Section 115 |
The meaning of estoppel:
|
Chattogram Dry Dock Ltd Vs. M.T. Fadl-E-Rabbi & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 82 |
Section 115 |
The logical question that arises in this circumstance is that if the auction-purchaser wants to employ the doctrine of estoppels as a shield on the ground of non-mentioning of the payment of customs duties in the auction notice, then, resorting to the same doctrine, he should not have paid off all other dues, taxes and charges, such as sale tax, Port dues and wage men’s charges which were also not mentioned in the auction notice published in the newspapers. The true scenario, as surfaces from the conducts of the auctionpurchaser and from the explanations received from the team of Marshall, is that it was notified to all the bidders that they were at liberty either to submit their proposal agreeing with these “Further Conditions” or they might abstain from submitting their proposals. Therefore, it is amply clear to me that upon accepting the above conditions, all the bidders have participated in the bid and this applicant became the highest bidder upon agreeing with and accepting the condition that customs duties and other Government dues are to be paid off on top of his offer of Taka 8,50,00,000/-. More so, on 10.07.2018, since the offer of the highest bidder was accepted and confirmed by this Court subject to the payment of all the Government tax, duties and charges, and given the fact that the auction-purchaser (applicant) received this Court’s aforesaid Order dated 10.07.2018 without raising any objection thereto, the auction-purchaser evidently had reconfirmed his position that he was purchasing the vessel upon agreeing with the conditions of payment of all the Government dues and, that is how, he had waived his right to question about payment of Government dues, which includes customs duties. ...Chattogram Dry Dock Ltd Vs. M.T. Fadl-E-Rabbi & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 82 ....View Full Judgment |
Chattogram Dry Dock Ltd Vs. M.T. Fadl-E-Rabbi & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 82 |