| 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
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…
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