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.
The High Court Division held that the certified copy of this application which is an attested document from both the parties has been marked as Exhibit-‘D’. Pursuant to that application the concerned court vide his order dated 01.04.1968 passed an order and in compliance of that order the process-server delivered possession. All these papers have been duly proved and after admission from the side of the plaintiff those have been exhibited. In this context; it is required to be mentioned that the plaintiff to the suit is an Advocate’s Mohorar who supposed to be a well acquainted person having knowledge about auction and its subsequent proceedings upto the final order passed by the executing court. The learned courts below after proper assessment of the relevant evidence on records and appreciation of law arrived at a concurrent decision that the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner is barred, inasmuch as he is stopped by law from claiming the suit property as prayed for in the schedule of the plaint from his side. Section 20 and 21 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides 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(Civil) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 401 ....View Full Judgment

Sontosh Kumar Chowdhury and others-Vs.-Pranab Kumar Chakraborty and others 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 401
Section 45

Medical Evidence:
Merely corroborative
It is true that the doctor has failed to ascertain the cause of death of the deceased. But since the confessional statements of the accused are found to be true, there remains no doubt in coming to a conclusion that the accused murdered victim. The importance of medical evidence in determining the cause of death of a victim is only corroborative, not conclusive in nature. In the case of Rekhal Chandra Nuha v State, 1 BLC (AD) 89, it has been held that in the absence of post mortem examination report, on the basis of ocular evidence conviction can be sustained. The State -Vs- 1. Md. Nasiruddin @ Anik (Criminal) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 275 ....View Full Judgment

The State -Vs- 1. Md. Nasiruddin @ Anik 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 275
section 45

Section 7K of the Arbitration Act of 2001:
While issuing an order of ad-interim restraint or injunction the learned District Judge is not empowered to pass an order under section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872:
While issuing an order of ad-interim restraint or injunction whatsoever, the learned District Judge is not empowered to pass an order under section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 for purpose of having any signature examined by a hand writing expert. It is also necessary to be reminded that a report under section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 submitted by a hand writing expert is not a conclusive evidences of finding of facts but which must be corroborated by supporting evidences. It is needless to state that such assessment and adducing of such evidences is a longer process under the relevant procedural law. By no stretch of imagination can it be contemplated that section 7K of the Arbitration Act, 2001 including section 7K (1) P contemplate the power of a District Judge for passing of the ad-interim order beyond a situation of urgency. Section 7K (1) particularly sub section (P) of the Act of 2001, does not contemplate a lengthy trial pursuant to adducing evidences whatsoever. Therefore the provision of Section 7K is limited to passing certain orders under certain situations and circumstances. The intention of the legislators in enacting of those provision also upon comparison and analogy with Order 39 Rule (1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to address circumstances of urgency and nothing beyond. ...Anamika Corp. Ltd. & ors Vs. Humayun M. Chowdhury & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 119 ....View Full Judgment

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]
Sections 164, 364 read with
Evidence Act [I of 1872]
Section 80
As the confessional statements of the accused were recorded in accordance with the provision of section 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and those were signed by the confessing accused as well as by the Magistrates, the court shall presume under section 80 of the Evidence Act that the documents are genuine and the statement as to eh circumstances under which it was taken by the Magistrate are true and confessions were duly taken. The State -Vs- 1. Md. Nasiruddin @ Anik (Criminal) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 275 ....View Full Judgment

The State -Vs- 1. Md. Nasiruddin @ Anik 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 275
Section 90

Record of rights:
Record of right is evidence of present possession and registered kabala is an evidence of title. The registered document will prevail over the records of rights and would remain in enforce until and unless, such kabala is cancelled by an appropriate civil court. The registered deed dated 13.05.1965 is an old document more than 30 years produced from proper custody presumed under Section 90 of the Evidence Act that it was duly executed and genuine documents. ...Md. Rofiqul Islam & ors Vs. Md. Khalilur Rahman & ors, (Civil), 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 29 ....View Full Judgment

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.
The High Court Division held that section 92 does not preclude a party from showing that the writing was not really the contract between the parties, but it was only a fictitious or colourable device which cloaked something else. In such situation of a particular case oral evidence is admissible to show that an agreement was only a sham or nominal transaction and was not intended to be acted upon or to show that a written agreement for the conveyance of property was only a fictitious exchange to defeat and infringe the statutory right to other. Abdul Hakim Siddique -Vs.- Mst. Shakhina Bewa and others (Civil) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 102 ....View Full Judgment

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.
The High Court Division is of the view that there is no bar in the section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act to adduce the parol evidence to show notwithstanding the recital of exchange not to its true perspective nature and object in a document. Abdul Hakim Siddique -Vs.- Mst. Shakhina Bewa and others (Civil) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 102 ....View Full Judgment

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:
As regards the burden to prove the fact that the impugned deed was obtained from executants by misleading them, the trial court has held that the burden of proof lied upon the plaintiffs, since, the plaintiffs disowned the Nadabinama deed. The appellate court was of the view that, this burden lied on the defendants. Having considered the provisions of section 102 of the Evidence Act, 1872, in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the burden to prove genuineness of this disputed Nadabinama deed lied upon the defendants, once the genuineness of the said deed has been denied by the plaintiffs. It is the defendant, who want from the court to believe their case that the Nadabinama (deed of surrender) was a genuine deed and it is they would loss in the trial court if the deed was not proved to be genuine one. The law of evidence would not facilitate forgery by unlawfully putting the burden on the victims of forgery. Therefore, finding of the appellate court on this issue is correct. …Abedun Nessa Vs. Jaher Sheikh and others, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 37 ....View Full Judgment

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
আমাদের বলতে দ্বিধা নেই যে, রাষ্ট্রপক্ষ তার কোনো সাক্ষ্য বা সাক্ষী দ্বারা প্রমাণ করতে সম্পূর্ণ ব্যর্থ হয়েছে যে, ঘটনার প্রাসঙ্গিক সময় এই মামলার ভিকটিম সালমা আসামীর হেফাজতে ছিল এবং ঘটনার দিন রাতে বা ঘটনার সময় তারা একত্রে ছিলু যেহেতু আসামীর এই ন্যূনতম উপস্থিতি প্রমাণ করতে রাষ্ট্রপক্ষ সম্পূর্ণভাবে ব্যর্থ হয়েছেন, সেহেতু এও বলতে দ্বিধা নেই যে, সাক্ষ্য আইনের ১০৬ ধারা অনুযায়ী এবং আমাদের উচ্চ আদালত কর্তৃক গৃহীত ও বিভিনড়ব সময়ে প্রণীত ঋণাত্মক দায়মূলক নির্দেশনা এই মামলার আসামীর উপর কোনোভাবেই বর্তাবে না। ...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

যেখানে ময়নাতদন্ত প্রতিবেদনে নরহত্যাজনিত (Homicidal in nature) লেখা থাকেনা সেখানে পারিপার্শ্বিক অবস্থা দেখে আদালতকেই নির্ধারণ করতে হবে এটি নরহত্যাজনিত মৃত্যু কিনাঃ
স্বীকৃত যে, ময়নাতদন্ত প্রতিবেদনে (প্রদর্শনী-৭) নরহত্যাজনিত (Homicidal in nature) কথাটি উল্লেখ করা নেই। এ প্রসঙ্গে বিজ্ঞ ডেপুটি অ্যাটর্নি জেনারেল বলেন, যেখানে ময়নাতদন্ত প্রতিবেদনে নরহত্যাজনিত (Homicidal in nature) লেখা থাকেনা সেখানে পারিপার্শ্বিক অবস্থা দেখে আদালতকেই নির্ধারণ করতে হবে এটি নরহত্যাজনিত মৃত্যু কিনা। আমরা তার সাথে সম্পূর্ণভাবে একমত এবং আমরাও পারিপর্শ্বিক বিভিন্ন অবস্থা এবং সাক্ষ্য বিবেচনায় নেয়ার জন্য এই মামলার সাক্ষীসমূহের সাক্ষ্য এবং দালিলিক সাক্ষ্যসমূহ পুঙ্খানুপুঙ্খভাবে পরীক্ষা করেছি, যেখানে কোথাও আমরা পাইনি যে, এই মৃত্যুকে কোনোভাবেই নরহত্যা বলা যাবে। বরঞ্চ সুরতহাল প্রতিবেদন (প্রদর্শনী-২) এবং ময়নাতদন্ত প্রতিবেদন (প্রদর্শনী-৭) পরীক্ষা করলে যে কোনো সুস্থ্য বোধজ্ঞানসম্পন্ন ব্যক্তির পক্ষে দুই বা তিন ধরনের মতামত দেয়া সম্ভব। যেমন- ভিকটিম গায়ে কেরোসিন দিয়ে নিজে আত্মহত্যা করেছে বা দুর্ঘটনাবশতঃ কেরোসিন বা অন্য কোথাও থেকে আগুন লেগে ভিকটিম নিহত হয়েছে অথবা ভিকটিমকে কেউ একজন হত্যা করে কেরোসিন দিয়ে পুড়িয়ে এটিকে আত্মহত্যা হিসাবে দেখানোর চেষ্টা করেছেন। এরকম তিন ধরনের সম্ভাবনা যেখানে উন্মুক্ত সেখানে আদালতের পক্ষে কোনোভাবেই বলা সম্ভব না যে, এটি একটি নরহত্যাজনিত ঘটনা। সুতরাং, আমাদের বলতে দ্বিধা নেই যে, রাষ্ট্রপক্ষ ভিকটিম সালমার এই মৃত্যুকে একটি নরহত্যা হিসাবে প্রমাণ করতে সম্পূর্ণ ব্যর্থ হয়েছে। ...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 114(e)

Presumption of regularity of the official acts and burden of proof in such cases:
In judicial review of administrative actions, the Court has to start with the presumption of regularity of the official acts which is incorporated in illustration (e) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The burden of proof is on the party who alleges the contrary. In the present case, the petitioner has successfully rebutted the presumption. The case of Shinepukur Holdings Ltd., 50 DLR (AD) 189 is of no assistance to the respondents. ...Md. Mominul Islam Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 108 ....View Full Judgment

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:
Husband instead of wife or wife instead of husband shall be competent witness:
Learned Advocate for the respondent strongly argued that defendant No. 1 Sirajul himself did not come before the court to depose in support of his case and adverse presumption can be drawn under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act for his non examination in the case despite being an important witness. A Power of Attorney given by defendant No. 1 to D.W. 1 through notary public bearing registration No. 135 of 2003 dated 28.06.2003 is kept in the record and under Order 3 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 85 of the Evidence Act this power of attorney bears weight. Now question arises whether D.W. 1 being wife of defendant No. 1 holds the same status of defendant No. 1 while deposing in the suit. Question of adverse presumption shall not arise if DW 1 holds the same position. Section 120 of the Evidence Act provides that husband instead of wife or wife instead of husband shall be competent witness. So according to the facts and circumstances of the instant case section 120 shall prevail over section 114(g) of the Evidence Act and the question on adverse presumption as argued does not arise. ...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)

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:
The meaning of estoppel that this Court finds from the statute book and Black’s Law Dictionary is that a party is prevented by his own acts from claiming a right to the detriment of the other party who was entitled to rely on such conduct and has acted accordingly. ...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
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