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