There are at least six law reports now in Bangladesh. Mainstream Law Reports(MLR) is the most cited law journal.
The Mainstream law Report is the nation\’s premier law journal. The MLR is the most-cited law journal in the nation, and it also ranks among the country\’s most-cited law reviews of any kind. Published monthly, the MLR provides timely treatment of significant developments in the law through articles contributed by judges, leading scholars, and practitioners, and through notes authored by the journal\’s editor and staff.
MLR is the most widely circulated and is one of the finest law journals in the country. Articles from MLR strive to add to the legal debate, expose and resolve ambiguities in legal doctrine, develop new approaches to understanding the operations of our legal system, and aid legal practitioners in performing their work for the benefit of society.
The Services (Reorganisation and Conditions) Act, 1975-
Section- 4. Power of Government to reorganize services of the Republic and public bodies and nationalized enterprises-The Government may, by order notified in the official Gazette, reorganize the service of the Republic or any public body or nationalized enterprise and for that purpose create new services or amalgamate or unify existing services-
Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh-
Article 29 (1)-There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in respect of employment or office in the service of the Republic.
Bangladesh Civil Service Recruitment Rules, 1981-
Section-3 Procedure for recruitment– Subject to the instructions relating to reservation for clause (3) of Article 29 of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh Constitution, appointment to a Service shall be made per the provisions of Schedule-II.
Section-4- Appointment by direct recruitment– (1) No appointment to a Service by direct recruitment shall be made except upon the recommendation of the Commission.
Government of Bangladesh Vs. Tauhid Uddin Ahmed & Others
High Court Division
Bill of Lading Act 1856-
Section 1- The importer of the cargo being notifying party enters into the shoe of the supplier-shipper through handing over of Bill of Lading by him to the importer-
Section -3- Ship owner remained ‘legal carrier’ in a ‘voyage charter party’ agreement and impliedly undertakes that the ship will proceed with reasonable dispatch subject to the condition of the charter party agreement-
Section I- under the voyage charter party agreement, the liability of delay in reaching discharge port shifts to the charterer if the delay is caused under agreement with the charterer, and the same shall not be transferred to the consignee.
Evidence Act 1872-
Section 74; public document; procuring copy from the public body of private documents does not make the private document a public document.-
Section 87-Judicial notice of distance of any place may be taken through the internet by log in to google map-
The plaintiff is a reputed company having Edible Oil Refining Industry, engaged in refining crude Soya bean oil, imported crude degummed Soybean Oil, in short CDSO, from Buenos Aires, Argentina in bulk through opening LC.
In the instant case, the plaintiff has claimed compensation for the loss due to the reduction of price in the Soybean oil due to the late delivery of the consignment from the defendant’s vessel at a delay of 61 days.
The learned court held that the alleged delay in delivery of the cargo is well within the terms of breach of contract, which is squarely adjudicative by the Admiralty Court as it comes under the provisions of Section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861. The court has also found that the defendant’s vessel reached Chittagong Port very late in derogation of the terms and conditions of the contract of carriage, and as such, this court finds that the plaintiff has a good cause of action for the instant Admiralty suit under the bundle of facts and circumstances and decreed the suit in-part in favor of the plaintiff for the realization of an amount of Taka 28,89,673.00 as compensation from the defendant No. 1 and 3.
Jaya Vegetable Oil Ltd Vs.Mt Komandarm Fedko & Others
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-
Order XXVI Rule 9- The appellate court having all the powers and trappings of the original court has discretion either to allow or disallow appointment of Advocate Commissioner for holding a local investigation, but the discretion should be exercised judiciously-
The suit land has not properly been described, and the same is not identifiable in the locality. In the instant case, the learned Judge of High Court Division believes that local investigation is essentially required for ascertaining the identity and location of the suit land by a survey knowing advocate Commissioner; otherwise, the decree passed by the trial court would be infractions.
Md. Babul Islam Vs. Md. Nasiruddin Sarder………………..
Arms Act, 1872-
Section 19A and 19(f)-
Based on the evidence of the police personnel, their evidence was found consistent, relevant, admissible, and not tainted by any discrepancy or ulterior motive, though not supported as such by the seizure list witnesses.
In the instant case, the appellant has convicted under section 19(A) of the Arms Act 1878 and sentenced 10 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years. The deposition made during the examination in chief by the prosecution witnesses Nos. 2 to 5, i.e., the seizure list witnesses, who were declared hostile, has been accepted by the learned High Court as true, while their deposition made during cross-examination denying that they did not witness the recovery of the arms is not believed by learned judges. Thus learned judges of the High Court Division find no merit in this appeal therefore dismissed.
Md. Fatik Mia Vs. The State ………………….
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898-
Section 561A – Quashment of proceedings at the stage before the framing of the charge is not permissible-
In the present case, the accused-petitioner invoked the jurisdiction under Section 561A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 to quash the proceeding when the charge sheet was submitted before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and no cognizance was taken against the petitioners. High Court Division believes that there is no reason to quash the criminal proceedings at this early stage on the ground that continuation of the present case would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
Md. Nurul Amin Chowdhury and another Vs. State…………………