Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 121 2020 SLD 121 2020 CLD 929
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan
Appeal No. 21 of 2017, decided on 26th December, 2019, Dates of hearing: 27th April, 2017, 14th March and 5th November, 2019.
SHAUKAT HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (CLD-C&CD), FARRUKH HAMID SABZWARI, COMMISSIONER (SCD, AML), AAMIR ALI KHAN, COMMISSIONER (CLD-CSD)
Saim Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court, Faisal Iqbal Khan, Faiza Khan and Mahmood Ali

NASIR ALI SHAH BUKHARI AND 2 OTHERS

VS

THE COMMISSIONER (SMD), SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN

Law: Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969

Section: 15A,15E

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -S. 20(c)- Jurisdiction of court-Principle-Provisions of S.20(c), C.P.C. confer jurisdiction on court in a civil suit when cause of action arises wholly or in part within territorial jurisdiction of a court- Suit is competent before a court where even a part or fraction of a cause of action arises-Only contents of plaint are to be looked into in deciding such matters. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- Ss. 20 & 9, O. VII, R. 10 & O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2-Territorial jurisdiction of court-Plaint, return of-Scope-Plaintiff was taxpayer who was issued show-cause notice by defendant authorities on discrepancies found during audit and sought restraining order from court-Authorities assailed maintainability of restraining order on grounds that court lacked territorial jurisdiction-Validity-Held, in such matters it was to be seen what main relief was sought by plaintiff-Main relief sought by plaintiff was legality and jurisdiction in issuing show-cause notice by defendant authorities- Merely for fact that some letters/clarifications issued by Federal Board of Revenue were also impugned, no cause of action could be claimed to have accrued within territorial jurisdiction of court- Existence of plaintiff within territorial jurisdiction of court did not confer any such jurisdiction as no cause of action accrued within territorial jurisdiction of court either wholly or partly- Case of plaintiff was against defendant directly and it was only a consequential relief which was being claimed against other defendants- Such relief would only be available once it was granted as prayed against defendant- High Court declined to interfere in the matter and returned plaint under O.VII, R.10, C.P.C. as there was no territorial jurisdiction to pass any or decree-Suit was disposed of accordingly. Sh. Abdul Sattar Lasi v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and 6 others 2006 CLD 18; LPG Association of Pakistan through Chairman v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad and 8 others 2009 CLD 1498; Messrs Land Mark…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492