MARTIAL LAW REGULATION

 

PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL LAW OF MARCH 24, 1982

 

Proclamation of Martial Law of March 24,
1982 Clause ‘h’—Martial Law Regulation III of 1983,

 

Article—4

Contempt
of Court—Contempt Rule was issued against some Government Officers for
violating the order of the High Court Division—Martial Law Regulation No. III
of 1983 was promulgated declaring the order of the High Court Division as void
and abating pending proceedings—The contempt proceeding cannot proceed and
consequently abates.

Martial
Law Regulations, Martial Law Orders and other orders and instructions made by
the Chief Martial Law Administrator during their continuance shall be the
Supreme Laws of the country and if any other law, is inconsistent with then,
that other law shall, to the extent of inconsistency, be void, This Martial Law
Regulation No. III of 1983 having been issued by the Chief Martial Law
Administrator in pursuance of the proclamation of the 24th March 1982 the same
is considered to be the supreme law of the country and in that view of the
matter Article 4 of the Martial Law Regulation No. III of 1983 haying debarred
the supreme Court in continuing with the pending legal proceeding in respect of
the judgment and writs, which are declared no nest, this contempt proceeding
cannot proceed and consequently abates.

Khalilur
Rahman Vs. Mr. Janised Au and others, 3 BLD(HCD)298

 

MARTIAL LAW REGULATION NO. VIII of 1977

 

Article—5(2)

Abatement of suit or proceeding—
Abatement of suit or proceeding when vesting or taking over of any property as
abandoned property is not challenged whether legal— When there is no challenge
to such vesting or taking over and the Government did not invoke the provisions
of Article 5(2) of Martial Law Regulation No. VII of 1977 and even did not apply
to the Court for recording abatement of the suit, the Court in recording suo motu
order of abatement seems to have ‘roceeded arbitrarily.

Asaduzzaman
Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Public Works and
Urban Development, 4BLD (AD) 189

 

Proclamation (Second Amendment) Order (P.O.
No. 1 of 1982), Para 4A (3)

 

Transfer of suit—Transfer of a suit
from one Court within the territorial limits of one Bench of the High Court
Division by another Bench whether permissible—A Bench of the High Court
Division has no jurisdiction to call for the records and withdraw a case lying
in a Court beyond the territorial limits of that Bench—In view of the
territorial limits or jurisdiction transfer of such a suit is not
permissible—Code of Civil Procedure, 1 908 (V of 1908), S. 24.

Moshaid
Au Vs. Begum Shakera Bairn and others, 4BLD(HCD) 91

Ref:
35 DLR I 18A—Cited.

 

MARTIAL LAW ORDER NO.40 OF 1982

 

Order of status quo—Whether such an
order passed under Martial Law Order No. 40 of 1982 can be maintained?— In the
absence of any materials that the order of maintenance of status quo which has
the effect of an order of injunction would not interfere with development plan,
the same cannot be maintained— Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order
39,R. 1.

Chunnu
Miah Chowdhury Vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 4BLD (HCD)
302

 

Martial Law Proclamation First Amendment
Order, 1982 (Proclamation Order No. 1 of 1982) Schedule Clause 4(3)

Transfer
of suit by the High Court Division—Whether after the suspension of the
Constitution of Bangladesh by the Proclamation of Martial Law on 24’ March,
1982 the High Court Division can exercise the power of transfer it had under
the suspended Constitution—Though the Constitution was suspended by the
Proclamation of Martial Law on 241 March 1982 by the Proclamation First
Amendment Order of 1982 schedule 4 was

added
whereby the High Court Division’s power of transferring suits under Article 110
of the suspended Constitution was revived— The High Court Division can exercise
the power in regard to transferring suits as it could exercise under Article
110 of the Constitution.

Bangladesh
Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Khondker Abu Bakr and another, 5BLD (HD)1

 

MARTIAL LAW ORDER NO.40 OF 1982

 

Injunction
against development plan— Whether development plan undertaken by Dhaka
Municipal Corporation can be restrained by an order of injunction—Whether
Martial Law Order No. 40 of 1982 applies to such development plan—The use of
the word ‘against’ twice first with regard to the Government and secondly with
regard to any Corporation necessarily implies that the Government has been
placed in one category and ‘any other Corporation’ has been placed in another
distinch category—In Martial Law Order No. 40 of 1982 ‘any corporation’ is
disjunctive from ‘other body or authority’—Since any corporation also includes
a corporation established by or under any law, Martial Law Order No. 40 of 1982
applies to a development plan undertaken by Dhaka Municipal
Corporation—Recording of satisfaction of the Court issuing an order of status
quo to the effect that the order would not have the effect of prejudicing or
interfering with any measure designed to implement any development plan or
programme or any development or public works or being otherwise harmful to the
public interest is sine qua non to the exercise of power of granting temporary
or ad-interim injunction—Omission on the part of the District Judge to record
such satisfaction as well as omission to record that recording of such
satisfaction is not necessary, is an error of law on the face of the judgment.

Al-haj
Md. Ruhul Amin Vs. Dhaka Municipal Jorporation and others, SBLD (HCD) 238.

 

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.