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.
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
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 11BLT(HCD)-496.
[Trade Marks Act, 1940 Section-23]
Ride 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. 9 BLT (HCD)-194