Court Report on Moot Court & Mock Trial

                                Mohammad Riaj Uddin

                                      LL.B (Hon’s)

                                        18^th Batch

                                 Department of Law

                       Southern University Bangladesh                                      

                                     Civil Suits

Case No: 1

Court Name: Judge, Artharin Adalat-1, Chittagong

Reference: Artharin suit No: 77/2012

Sitting Judge: Mohammad A.Q.M Nashir Uddin

Trial Date: 14.10.13

                            

                                Sonaly Bank vs. Maser’s Mapple Traders

Fact: That the plaintiff ‘sonaly’ Bank filed this suit against the defendant ‘Mapple Traders’. The defendant Mizanur Rahman owner of ‘Mapple Traders’ took 3, 00,000 Taka as lent by Mortgage of his schedule land and deposited relevant document in such Bank  on minimum 14.5 % interest and amount of lent would be paid within 16.04.2004. But matter of regret was that the defendant did not communicate with the plaintiff during that period. Besides he did not pay any interest on such lent and in the meantime the plaintiff had requested to the defendant several times during such period. But the defendant did not pay heed to the requests. At last, the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant on 03.11.2004 and 17.03.2005 calling upon the defendant to pay the lent money. But unfortunately he refused to do so and gave no answer. In order to get back the lent money the Sonaly Bank (Plaintiff) called for Auction of the Mortgaged property by two newspaper on 27.05.2006 but nobody bit for that. After on 30.12.2010 the defendant applied for reduce the interest but the plaintiff denied the request and Finding no other way the plaintiff filed this suit in the Honorable court.

  Stage: Peremptory hearing.

                                   

                

Case No: 2

Court Name: Senior Assistant Judge and Family Court, Chittagong

Reference: Other suit No: 35/2012

Sitting Judge: Mohammad Saifur Rahman Mojumdar

Trial Date: 09.10.13

                               Shahida Begum vs. Md.Tofael Ahmed

Fact: The plaintiff of this suit Shahida Begum is a simple, polite lady. On 20.12.12 marriage ceremony between plaintiff and defendant was held under Muslim law by registered Nikah Nama. Plaintiff’s father spent a huge amount of money to entertain guests and a lot of valuables were given as presentations by the relatives of plaintiff and on 20.12.12 all there were taken to the defendant’s residence. In the Nikha Nama dower was fixed at 5, 00,000 taka out of which 2, 00,000 taka was shown paid. After marriage the plaintiff concentrated herself to start happy conjugal life. But within a few days of the marriage the plaintiff discovered the real character of the defendant. He pressured her to bring 2, 00,000 taka from her father’s residence. While the plaintiff refused the defendant mentally and physically tortured the plaintiff. On 14.03.12 at 11.30 pm the defendant mercilessly tortured the plaintiff and the defendant gave threat to divorce if she fails to bring money from her father’s residence. The on 16.03.12 the defendant left the plaintiff and he has not spent anything for maintenance from that date. On 25.05.12 the defendant sent divorce letter to the plaintiff. The plaintiff demanded her dower money and maintenance by sending a legal notice to the defendant. But the defendant refused to pay that money and refused to accept the legal notice. Finding no other way the plaintiff filed this suit.

                                    

Stage: Hearing of the parties

                                                               

Case No 3

Court Name: Hathazari Assistant Judge Court, Chittagong

Reference: Other Suit No: 43/12

Sitting Judge: Md. Kamal Hossain

Trial Date: 17.10.13

                            Jamilur Rahman vs. Hasan Ali and others

Fact: That Jamilur Rahman, the plaintiff of this suit is an honorable businessman and the defendant Hasan Ali engaged in business beside the plaintiff’s shop. As neighboring businessman there was a friendly relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant face financial crisis to run the business and requested to the plaintiff to lend him an amount of 1, 00,000 taka and the plaintiff lent him such amount. Then defendant handed over a cheque No. GB234324 of taka 1, 00,000 into the plaintiff. But it was dishonored. Then after several requests the defendant refunded 60,000 taka and the other remaining unpaid. The defendant could not overcome his financial crisis. He proposed the plaintiff to sell the suit land was fixed 2, 50,000 Tk. The plaintiff paid 1, 50,000 taka to the defendant as earnest money. The defendant executed an agreement for sale in the name of the plaintiff in 05.07.11. The defendant agreed to execute a registered deed for sale of the land after receiving the rest of money within 1 years of agreement. At that time the defendant handed over to the plaintiff a true copy of purchase deed of the land and non-encumbrance certificate regarding the land. But the period has been elapsed. The plaintiff requested the defendant to execute the sale deed. But the defendant did not pay any heed to the requests. Then the plaintiff sent a legal notice which was refused by the defendant. That’s why plaintiff filed this suit.

Stage: Examination of Witnesses

                                        

                                  Criminal Cases

Case No: 4 

Court Name: Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chittagong

Reference: C.R case No: 21/13, Under section: 143, 144, 148, 148, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 307, 380, 506, 34 0f Penal Code.

Sitting Judge: Mohammad Mshiour Rahman Chowdry

Trial Date: 18.10.13

                             Runa Akter vs. Mohammad Farid and others.

Fact: That the complainant of this case Runa Akter is a polite and sociable leady. Moreover accused was hazardous and characterless man in his area. Besides the complainant and accused were blood relative. The fact is that in order to getting the possession of complainant property the accused always trying to disposed the complainant from his possession and the accused made forged deed to get such land but he failed. Also the complainant proved of his conspiracy and forged deed. For this reason the accused gave open threat to kill the complainant. On 24.12.12 at 10 am the accused attacked by sharp weapon, chopper, axe, dagger, long knife, long steel upon the complainant’s child and her husband’s brother. The accused no. 1 Md. Farid attacked on Rana (complainant brother-in-law) by dagger and hit on her head and Rana became senseless. Moreover accused no. 2(kamal) and 3(Harun) attacked by chopper and long steel on complainant and the complainant was seriously injured. Besides the accused took all gold ornaments, one lac taka and some valuable materials. By hearing of noise the villager of the area came and escape them and accused went away. After that the villagers took them and admitted into Chittagong Medical College Hospital. And finally finding no other way the complainant filed this case in the Honorable court.

Stage: Bail petition

                                         

Case No: 5

Court Name: Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittagong

Reference: C.R case No: 2076/12, under section 138 of the N.I Act, 1881

Sitting Judge: Md. Mir Ruhul Amin

Trial date: 25.10.13

                          Rukunuzzaman Kaiser vs. Zamil Ahmed

Fact: That the complainant of this case Rukunuzzaman Kaiser has been in good and friendly relationship with the accused Zamil Ahmed for a long time. Out of that relationship the accused approached him for advance loan of taka 3, 00,000 accordingly he advanced that amount that would return the loan within a short time. The complainant demanded the loan amount on various occasions. After several request accused handed over cheque No: SB8832956 dated 12.6.11 for 3, 00,000 taka. The complainant accepted the said cheque and accordingly presented the said cheque upon the Supali Bank Limited, Agrabad Branch, for necessary encashment. But the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient fund. The complainant has reasons to believe that the accused gave a fake cheque. The complainant sent a legal notice Under Sec/ 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 to the accused on 20.06.11. But the accused refused the notice and to communicate with the complainant after the expiration of the limitation period, finding no way, the complainant filed this suit under sec/ 138 of N.I Act, 1881 to the Honorable Court.

                                           

Stage: Bail Petition

Case No: 6

Court: Metropolitan Magistrate Court-5, Chittagong

Reference: 142/2002 under sections 302, 34 of Penal code

Sitting Judge: Md. Ahmed Saied

Date: 22.10.13

                            State vs. Shahabuddin Ahmed and others

Facts: The complainant Md. Shahabuddin Ahmed of this case is an illiterate businessman. Md. Sumon, only son of Md. Sha alom played cricked with Md. Robel, son of the accused Shahabuddin Ahmed at 10 am on 08.05.02. Akkce and Mahabub took participate with them in game. At a situation they quarreled with each other regarding an out. At that time they slang hot words with one others over the question of that out. They went their houses after they had finished their quarrel leaving the game. After hearing the event the accused Shahabuddin and Md. Delower made quarrel with Md. Sumon, son of the complainant while they were at the bank of a pond. The quarrel reached its claims. At a point the accused along with his assistants beat Sumon with sticks and gave continuously kick, fist. Unfortunately Sumon died that Spot. And finally finding no other way the complainant filed this case in the Honorable court.

Stage: Pronouncement of Judgment