| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 324 2006 SLD 324 2006 CLD 289 |
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan
Application for restoration of Appeal No.2 of 2003, heard on 27-04-2005
RASHID I. MALIK AND SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONERS IKRAM-UL-HAQ, JOINT DIRECTOR AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL, JOINT DIRECTOR FOR RESPONDENT.
Umer Lakhan for Applicants.
Application for restoration of Appeal No.2 of 2003, heard on 27-04-2005
RASHID I. MALIK AND SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONERS IKRAM-UL-HAQ, JOINT DIRECTOR AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL, JOINT DIRECTOR FOR RESPONDENT.
Umer Lakhan for Applicants.
MUHAMMAD AHMED ISMAIL AND OTHERS
VS
COMMISSIONER (SCD), SECT
Law: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Appellate Bench Procedure) Rules, 2003
Section: 13
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Appellate Bench Procedure) Rules, 2003-R. 13(1)---Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.168---Dismissal of appeal in default---Restoration, application for---Appeal filed by appellants under S.33 of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 having been dismissed for non-prosecution, appellant had filed application for its restoration after more than one year and four months from its dismissal, with application for condonation of delay in filing said application---No clear and sufficient reason for delay in filing application for restoration of appeal dad been given---Effect---Proceedings before Commission and Appellate Bench were in the form of summary proceedings and Appellate Bench was required under Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Appellate Bench Procedure) Rules, 2003, to decide appeal as far as possible, within 45 days of its filing---Contention that appellants would have 3 years to file an application for restoration of an appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution, would defeat the intent and purpose of law---If Appellate Bench was to take guidance from law of limitation, it would be from Art.168 of Limitation Act, 1908, which had specifically dealt with the present matter---Law would not help a person who was not vigilant of his own right---Conduct of appellants had throughout been non-serious, as they had taken more than 20 months to apply for restoration of appeal---Contention. of appellants that order passed by Appellate Bench was a void order as appeal was not 'called on' for hearing, was repelled being absurd because Appellate Bench did not function like ordinary Courts where calls were made for the parties and appeals before it were specifically fixed ed on dates and exact time---On the date when appeal was dismissed by Appellate Bench, date and exact time had been fixed on the request of appellants---Appellants having not come to Appellate Bench with clean hands, application for restoration of appeal, was dismissed. ORDER 1. This order will dispose off the application under Rule 13(1) of the…
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