CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE, 1984

 Section-19(2) And

Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972

Articles-27 and 38

(a) Section- 19(2) of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance challenged by the petitioner who was elected for 3 consecutive terms, a member of the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society is not violative of the Articles-27 and 38 of the Bangladesh Constitution though S.l9(2) imposes restriction on a citizen rendering the petitioner uneligible for being elected as an officer of the Co-operative Society unless a period of 2 years elapsed before the expiry of his last term as a member of the said society—the petitioner was not treated unequally.

Md. Abdus Sattar Vs. Bangladesh. 1BLT (AD)-31

(b) Interpretation of the legislative intent ‘old is gold’- “the old order changeth yielding place to new-reasonableness of
restriction.

“While the proverb “old is gold” has a fatal attraction, another proverb “the old order changeth yielding place to new” is equally honoured. Which proverb to following what given situation is a legislative exercise and it cannot be said that barring a thrice-elected Member of the Managing Committee to stand for election again till the lapse of 2 years since his last term expired is an
unreasonable restriction.”

Md. Abdus Sattar Vs. Bangladesh. 1BLT (AD)-31

Section- 134(5)

Section 134(5) of the Ordinance provides for filing petition before the District Judge from an order of the appellate authority. This provision has been made for the examination of correctness of the decision of the appellate authority. The authority or power so assigned to the District Judge as well as to the Additional District Judge is not limited to the question of law alone, but also authorizes to examine the correctness of the decision of the appellate authority in the background of the materials on record and as such while examining the correctness of the decision of the appellate authority the District Judge or the Additional District Judge is quite competent to examine the case of the parties in the background of the materials placed on record and in the instant case the learned Additional District Judge on scrutiny of the materials brought on record by the parties arrived at the finding that the deed dated 14.3.1980 was forged and fabricated one. The power so exercised by the
learned. Additional District Judge is quite in accordance with law.

Md. Mojibul Huq alias Shaikh Vs. Mrs. Sonaban Bibi & Ors. 14 BLT (AD)47

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.