IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH (APPELLATE DIVISION)
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 74 of 1995
Decided On: 05.07.1999
Appellants: Dhaka City Corporation
Vs.
Respondent: Md. Abdus Salam
**Hon’ble Judges:**Mustafa Kamal, C.J., Bimalendu Bikash Roy Chowdhury, A.M. Mahmudur Rahman and Mahmudul Amin Chowdhury, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sharifuddin Chaklader, Advocate-on-Record
Subject: Property
Catch Words
Mentioned IN
Prior History:
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.12.1994 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 2288 of 1994
Disposition:
Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT
Bimalendu Bikash Roy Chowdhury, J.
-
This petition for leave to appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 2288 of 1994. The High Court Division by Judgment dated 4.12.1994 summarily rejected the writ petition.
-
It is the case of the petitioner that originally the property in question belonged to respondent Nos. 3 to 8 to the writ petition which the Government acquired for public purpose and on being dissatisfied with the compensation assessed the owners filed arbitration Case No. 143 of 1990 before the learned Subordinate Judge and Arbitrator who assessed the compensation at Tk. 42,35,809.69 paisa by award dated 19.2.1991 against which the petitioner preferred arbitration Appeal No. 29 of 1991 before the learned District Judge and arbitration Appellate Tribunal who upon consideration of the materials on record affirmed the award. Against this order Writ Petition No. 2288 of 1994 was filed which was summarily rejected by the High Court Division by judgment dated 4.12.1994.
-
The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that merely relying upon the photocopy of a ‘Kabala’ the compensation was assessed by the Arbitrator which ought to have been interfered with by the appellate authority and the High Court Division failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter.
-
It is not disputed that against a preliminary assessment an arbitration may be taken to the Arbitrator against whose judgment an appeal may be taken which has been done in the present case. There is absolutely nothing to hold that the learned Subordinate Judge and the Arbitrator and the learned District Judge and arbitration Appellate Tribunal while passing and affirming the award exceeded the jurisdiction. It is submitted that merely on a photocopy of a document assessment was made but against that document nothing has been produced before the Arbitrator or before the arbitration Appellate Tribunal. The High Court Division considered every aspect of the matter and came to the finding that the Arbitrator as well as the appellate authority acted within jurisdiction.
-
In view of the aforesaid we find no merit in this petition for leave to appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.