Commencement of an Act and its coming into force are not the same thing. For commencement of an Act there can only be one date. An Act may come into effect as a whole or in part on the day of its commencement, or it may be given, as a whole or in part, a retrospective effect from a date earlier than the date of commencement. Even there the Act is given retrospective operation the significance of the date of commencement of that law will be relevant for several reasons. From the date if its commencement an act will find a place on the statute book of the country.

Bangladesh Vs. Prof Golam Azam & Ors. 3BLT (AD)-3


This section provides that the right that accrued to a person under an enactment subsists even after expiry of the Act but it applies only when an enactment is repealed by another enactment. And when an enactment expired by lapse of time, it is deemed never to exist except transaction past and closed. The Emergency Requisition as Property Act has not been repealed by lapse of time and so the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the benefit of section 8B of the Act.

S. Ekramur Rahman Vs, Ministry of Land 3BLT (HCD)-35


If any proceeding was started on any action was taken in a repealed law, even after repeal of the law the proceeding will continue under the repealed law as if law is not repealed.

Md. Amjad Hossain & Ors Vs. Upazilla Nirbahi Officer Savar & Ors 3BLT (HCD)-163

Section – 6

It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective and not retrospective.

Secretary, Ministry of Education & Ors. Vs. North Point University. 14 BLT (AD)109


Whether the Government can correct a wrong by making a Gazette Notification subsequently.

Held: On careful reading of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act we find that the Government is not debarred to do so but can exercise the power in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and condition (if any), to add, to amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or by-laws. Thus we hold that the Government has the power to make such amendment but subject to certain restriction as referred above.

Mst. Nurjahan Begum Vs Bangladesh & Ors. 6BLT (HCD)-153

Section 21

In the instant Cast the Respondent is not The learned Counsel for the Respondent upon referring to the provision of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 tried to develop an argument that it was much within the competency of the Respondent to recall or rescind the resignation and that having had done so prior to the acceptance and communication of the acceptance of the resignation, the action of the Biman authority was incompetent one. The Respondent is not authorized b law to avail of the provision of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act in withdrawing of canceling the letter or resignation, which was of immediate

Bangladesh Biman Corporation & Ors. Vs. Md. Jusimuddin 11BLT (AD)-30


Service of notice under section 106 of the T.P. Act—the notice sent by post at the address of the suit premises having been returned unserved with the remark of the postal authority ‘left’ was presumed to be good service—laying in case of M/S. Haque Brothers Ltd. Vs. Mrs Gulfam Begum, C.P. No. 314 of 1993.

Md. Nurul Islam Vs. Md. Alt Hossain Miah & Ors. 5BLT (AD)-297

General Observation

Because of anomaly between sub section, 1 and sub section 2 of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1994 the real spirit behind the said provision is being frustrated. Instead of bringing improvements, the amendment of Section 105C of the Companies Act, 1913 to its present position, has rather created confusion.

M. Islam Vs. Al-Rajhi Hospital (Pvt.) Limited & Ors. 11 BLT (HCD)-474

General observation

We are of the opinion that if a judge of this Division is elevated to the Appellate Division it should not be on the basis of seniority alone rather it should be on the basis of seniority cum merit. The hard reality is that the quality of the judges of Division, though are of a satisfactory level, all are not equal. Some are more brilliant may be left behind and the less competent may be elevated to the Appellate Division simply because he was appointed a judge of this Division at an earlier point of time than the others. This will have the following effect on the highest judiciary; firstly the most brilliant judges may be left behind though they could make better contribution to the judiciary. Secondly, if seniority-cum-merit becomes the criterion then right after the appointment of a judge in this Division he will do his best to improve the quality of his judgment and his overall performance as a judge and there will be a sense of competitiveness among the judges in performing their judicial duties. This will immensely benefit the nation as a whole and the judiciary in particular and the most meritorious will move ahead the less meritorious. The judges of his Division will then leave no stone unturned to devote themselves whole heartedly to the job day in and day out during the tenure of their office.

S. N. Goswami & Ors. Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. 11 BLT(HCD)-213

General Observation

No litigant has a right to lay fraudulent, shady, ill motivated and untenable proceeding in a Court of law when those cases are throttling the functioning of Justice dispensation system which itself is groaning under unbearable arrears and backlogs. For blameworthy conduct of these types of unprincipled and dishonest litigants compensatory cost is to be awarded upon them.

Purobi Rani Barmani Vs. Shohrab Hossain & Ors 11(HCD)-496

General Observation [Trade Marks Act, 1940 Section-23]

Rule 23 of the Trade marks Rules, provides an important safeguard for proper functioning the provisions of the Trade Marks Act. Unless this provision is properly complied with in its real spirit the whole procedure of granting registration of a trademark will in a chaotic condition.

M. A. Taher Sikder Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks &Ors. 9BLT (HCD)-194

General observation

Per Mr. Justice M.A. Aziz: law enforcing agency—They are the largest and most organized group of gangsters and terrorists with license to carry arms anywhere at any time.

Per Mr. Justice Shamsul Huda: the law enforcing agencies, specially the police must do their best to bring back confidence upon them. It is ill luck for our nation that police are placed to face trial for committing heinous criminal offences i.e. murder, rape, dacoity, looting etc. This is a shame to the whole police community department.

Afzalul Abedin & Ors. Vs. Govt of Bangladesh & Ors. (HCD)-490

General observation

Section 461 (2) of the company’s Act,1985 (English)-In an application under section 233, an order directing the majority share-holders to purchase the shares of the minority, is often passed, although there is no such specific provision. Some time such order may create confusion and also difficulties. The English Act provides for purchase of shares not only by the members but also by the company itself and consequently allow reduction of its capital.

Nurul Hoque Chowdhury Vs. Mrs. Mahzabin Chowdhury. 12 BLT (HCD)261

General observation

Modern banking is multifarious and based upon utmost trust ‘and confidence. No bank, is expected to receive the charge documents executed in blank in necessary particulars and then, fill them as and when they think fit.

When they fill in them afterwards they cannot do so without committing breach of such trust and confidence. We must say it is in the best interest of the bank to abandon such old practice, if any, as early as possible.

BCCI Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh Electrical Industries Ltd. & Ors. 12 BLT (HCD)502

General observation

The respondent No.1 obtained the ex-parte decree long ago but did not yet get the decreetal dues. In terms of Clause(e) of Article 88 of the Constitution expenditure for satisfying such decree is a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. So it is desirable that Ministry of Finance, takes immediate steps for including the decreetal dues, which is the subject matter of the present case,
in the annual financial statement to be prepared for next year so that the above decreetal dues may be paid out of the consolidated Fund.

Bangladesh Bank Vs. Mrs. Rana Awan & Ors 15 BLT (AD)260.