| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 543 2025 SLD 543 = 2025 PLD 59 |
Sindh High Court
C.P. No. D-3523 of 2020, decided on 23rd September, 2024.
Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, C.J. and Jawad Akbar Sarwana, J
Sameer Tayebally for Petitioner. Khaleeq Ahmed, Deputy Attorney General for
Respondent No.1. Furqan Ali for
Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
C.P. No. D-3523 of 2020, decided on 23rd September, 2024.
Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, C.J. and Jawad Akbar Sarwana, J
Sameer Tayebally for Petitioner. Khaleeq Ahmed, Deputy Attorney General for
Respondent No.1. Furqan Ali for
Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
B.R.R. GUARDIAN MODARABA and 8 others---Petitioners
VERSUS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and 2 others---Respondents
Law: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)
Section: 20(4)(o)
Law: Modaraba Companies and Modaraba Rules, 1981
Section: 8(4)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997)-------S. 20(4)(o)---Modarba Companies and Modarba Rules, 1981, R. 8(4)--Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Inquiry, initiation of--Issuance of show cause notice---Petitioners were aggrieved of show cause notice issued by SECP in order to safeguard interests of Modarba Certificate holders--Validity---Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, in terms of S. 20(4)(o) of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 is empowered to perform such functions and exercise such powers of the Authority, including any powers of Federal Government delegated to the Authority and under any other law for the time being in force under which any function or power has been conferred on the Authority including, but not limited to, the functions and powers set out in Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997---SECP after hearing petitioners and/or their representatives passed order in question---Payments to different individuals on different heads were made without codal formalities and/or providing legitimacy of such payments---There were some incidents of fire which resulted in loss to company in view of absence of insurance coverage/Takafal--Huge payments needed to be scrutinized, and if the Regulator would keep a blind eye on it, then entire scheme set out in relevant laws to maintain a system of check and balance on companies would become redundant---High Court declined to exercise jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution as the petitioners failed to point out the fundamental right which had been infringed, as High Court was not sitting in appeal over order in question---Petitioners raised controversies factual in nature and the same were not warranted while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution---It was primary duty of regulatory authorities to safeguard interests of certificate holders and order in question was an attempt to achieve such goal---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.Date of hearing: 2nd September, 2024.JUDGMENTMUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, C.J.---Impugned in this petition is an order passed by…
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