The General clauses Act 1897
Section 6- The action taken under the repealed Act shall continue as if it has not been repealed By reason of abolition of Bureau of Anti-Corruption, no offender can claim any right of non-prosecution under the new Ain. More so, in view of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, proceedings of the case shall be continued from the stage the old law was repealed unless different intention appears in the repealing enactment. There is nothing in the new enactment restricting the continuation of the pending proceedings, rather it saved those proceedings. We have, already settled the point in controversy in an unreported case in Civil Petition No. 1321 of 2013' disposed of along with CP Nos.235-237 of 2016. This court held that 'even if the Commission is not constituted under the Ain, the actions taken under the repealed Act shall continue as if it has not been repealed. There cannot be any doubt to infer that the activities of the defunct Bureau will be suspended by reason of the abolition of the Bureau, rather all activities will continue Liaquat Hossain VS Sayed Barrister Md Rafiqul Islam Mia, [3 LM (AD) 440]
The General Clauses Act, 1897
Section 6
Prayed for a direction for fixing up their seniority, promotion, pay and status, time scale in accordance with the pro- visions of Rules, 1981 but the authority on a misconception of law fixed their seniority, promotion, pay and status as per Rules of 2000. Government of Bangladesh vs. Kamrun Nahar (S.K. Sinha J) (Civil) 8 ADC 95
Section 21
The High Court Division observed that
Customs Authority taking a correct view of law and facts rightly realized the
Customs duty at the enhanced rate i.e. at the rate of 37.5% on the strength of
SRO 47 dated 14.02.2000 and also correctly and legally imposed supplementary
duty at the rate 20% pursuant to SRO No. 45 dated 14.02.2000. (5) Md. Alam vs.
The Commissioner of Customs (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J(Civil) 5 ADC 917
Section 21
It also appears that Section 19 confers
general power upon the Government to exempt from customs duties; but there is
nothing in the statute that the exemption once granted cannot be withdrawn or
modified. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act has been rightly applied to
lend support to this view. It is not cor- rect that Section 30 is subject to
Section 19 or Section 19 is subject to Section 30. Section 30 merely provides
the guid. ance for levying duty on the goods imported or exported. M/S. A.S.
Trade International VS. Government of Bangladesh (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J)
(Civil) 5 ADC 959
Section 21
That respondent having had voluntarily.
tendered his resignation and that the Biman having had accepted his letter of
resignation on due compliance of the provision of the Regulations and there
having no provision in the Regulations for withdrawal of resignation in the
interim period of acceptance of resigna- tion by the Biman Authority.
Bangladesh Biman Corporation vs Md. Jusimuddin (Md. Ruhud Amin J) (Civil) 2ADC
732
General property is that which every
absolute owner has special property may mean: (1) that the subject matter is
incapable of being in the absolute ownership of any person; e.g., wild animals;
(2) that the thing can only be put to a particular use; e.g., in the case of
bailment". (The concise Law Dictionary-by P.G. OSBORN, 4th Edition
Seeking decree for permanent injunc-
tion restraining the defendant Nos. 2-101 from admitting girl students in
Nalchity Merchants High School.
In violation of the norms of the non-
government education at institutions, that the High School under the law was
required to apply to the Deputy Director of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education Board for according permis- sion to start a girl school but no such
application was filed and as such the High school was not authorized to
establish any school for admitting girls within one Kilometer of the existing
girls school. The view so taken by the High Court Division as to the matter of
admission of girl students into Nalchity Girls High School as the exclusive
right thereof in our view is not well founded since a par- ticular school
imparting education to the girl students of the locality can not have the
exclusive claim to have the girl stu- dents of the locality admitting therein
alone as it is the option of the parents of the girls as well as of the girls
to decide the matter of admission in the institution or school wherein girls
would have bet- ter education and as such the action of the High school in
admitting girl stu- dents in our view has in no way invaded or threatening
proprietary right or any kind of right of the School, and in that view of the
matter the Nalchity Girls High School was not on correct legal footing in going
to the Court for having an order restraining the High School from admitting
girl students in it and that the High Court Division was in error in
discharging the Rule and there- by affirming the order of the lower appellate
Court granting injunction restraining the High School from admit- ting girl
students upon setting aside the order of the trial Court. The kind of right
i.e. to have girl students exclusively admitted in the School as claimed by the
School and accepted by the High Court Division and thereupon made the same
basis of the judgment was erroneous as the right claimed by the School is by no
standard is 'property' and thus right claimed by the School was not 'right
to, or enjoyment of, property' and conse- quent thereupon the School was
neither entitled to temporary injunction, nor to a decree of permanent
injunction. Md. Shahid Hossain Khan vs. Abdul Bashed Lashkar and others (Md.
Ruhul Amin Jy (Civil) 4ADC 214
The General Clauses Act, 1897
Section 21
That respondent having had voluntarily
tendered his resignation and that the Biman having had accepted his letter of
resignation on due compliance of the provision of the Regulations and there having
no provision in the Regulations for withdrawal of resignation in the interim
period of acceptance of resigna- tion by the Biman Authority. Bangladesh Biman
Corporation vs Md. Jusimuddin (Md. Ruhul Amin J)(Civil) 2ADC 732
Section 21
There was no provision either in the
Ordinance of 1985 or in any rules, circu- lar etc. for absorbing or
regularizing a contract service on a permanent basis. The notification for
absorbing or regu- larizing the appellants contract service on a permanent
basis was done illegal- ly and without lawful authority. The expression in the
public interest was bltantly used for a private cause. Lt. Col. (Retd.)
Nazimuddin Ahmed vs Bangladesh (M.A. Aziz J)(Civil) 2ADC 780
Section 24
Violation of regulation No.6 (3) which
incorporates the principle of seniority-cum-merit for promotion. Delegation of
power once made shall continue unless withdrawn/rescinded. Therefore, by a
subordinate legislation i.e. service regulations of 1997 the power conferred by
the P.O.10 of 1972, cannot be taken away.
"So far as suitability or
promotion to a particular post is concerned, the sole judge is the Government
and Courts are unable to interfere except possibly in a case of proved
malafides."
We have already found that delegation
of power made under Article 27 P.O. 10 of 1972 made in 1974 was neither with-
drawn nor rescinded till now and in the service regulations of 1997 there is no
specific provision for delegation of power afresh by the Board to the Managing
Directors. We accordingly hold that delegation of power made in 1974 still
continues. We have also found that under regulations 6 (3) seniority- cum-merit
is the criteria for promotion and seniority alone is not the criteria for
promotion (Regulation 6 (2)). We have also found that promotion in service
cannot be claimed as a matter of right but a person has a right to be
considered for promotion. Bangladesh Shipping Corporation & others vs.
Mohammad Hossain & others (M.M. Ruhul Amin. J)(Civil) 4ADC 156
Section 26
This petitioner having suffered
imprisonment for over nine years in a previous incompetent trial and the trial
by the incompetent Court having taken place for no fault or act of the
petitioner fresh trial as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge. Noakhali
should not be allowed to proceed and this Court under this peculiar
circumstances may act under Article 104 of the Constitution of the People's
Republic of Bangladesh to meet the ends of justice. It is also sub- mitted that
fresh trial of the petitioner is improper when he had suffered impris onment
from incompetent prosecution for no fault of his own but for the fault of the
prosecution.".....(4)
The ancient maxim "Nime Bis
Dengpuniri pro uno Dle cte" meaning thereby that no one ought to be twice
punished for one offence which is presently a popular maxim "autrofois
convict" or "autre fois acquit" (principle of double jeopardy).
The said maxims have been illustrated in Halsbury's Laws of England as under:
Mohammad Ullah vs. Sessions Judge, Noakhali having office at Majidi Court,
Noakhali and orders (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 4ADC 138
Section 26-Impugned proceeding, filed under sections 420/406, is pending before the trial Court and no order of conviction has yet been recorded. Therefore, section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable. On the other hand, section of General Clauses Act is not applicable in the facts and circumstances present case, in as much as, section 26 bars punishment twice for committing the same offence, but it does not bar prosecution or conviction for committing the same offence. Nurul Islam vs State, 69 DLR 308
Section 27-Before insertion of this sub-section 1A there was some ambiguities as regard the service of notice. To dispel such ambiguity sub-section IA of section 138 of the Act was inserted in order to further clarify the method of 'service' of "notice" and to fortify the earlier section 138 in respect of service of notice. This provision brings about an additional measure which the legislature in its wisdom thought it proper to be inserted by 1A and this provision, has been added to the original laws governing the field only to strengthen the procedure of service of 'notice' that existed before. Though the provisions under section 27 of the Act were there, even then the legislature further clarified this substantive issue and set it at rest once for all. Mofizur Rahman (Md) vs Bangladesh Represented by Secretary Ministry of Law, 69 DLR 402
Section 27
Although the scope of exercising
revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Small Cause Court Act is wider
than under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, yet before interfering
with any finding of fact of the trial court under section 25 of the said Act
the High Court Division is to come to find- ing that such finding of the trial
Court suffers from any error of law ......(6) Md. Nurul Islam vs Md. Ali
Hossain Miah ors (Mohammad Abdur Rouf JCivil) 2ADC 964
