2006 PLP 364 (CLD)
LIMITED — Appellant Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (SPECIALIZED COMPANIES DIVISION) SEC and
| Citation | 2006 PLP 364 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LIMITED — Appellant Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (SPECIALIZED COMPANIES DIVISION) SEC and |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 364 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 364 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 364 (CLD) (LIMITED — Appellant Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (SPECIALIZED COMPANIES DIVISION) SEC and). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ms. Farah Qamar, Joint Director for Respondents.
- 2. On the hearing date Mr. Kazin' Hassan, Advocate appeared on behalf of PICIC and Ms. Farah Qamar appeared for the respondents. 'The preliminary arguments by Mr. Hassan revealed that PICIC had not been granted an opportunity of being heard. It also transpires that the power to renew or refuse the renewal of the Investment Advisory licence under Rule 5(5) of the NBFC Rules has been delegated by the Commission to the Executive Director (Specialized Companies Division) under S.R.O. 161(I)/2004 dated 17-3-2004, however there is no decision or order of the competent authority on record which B was conveyed to PICIC. Clearly respondent No.1 does not have the power or authority to refuse the renewal of the licence to PICIC. The decision conveyed by respondent No.1 is, therefore, not a lawful order. Under the circumstances we have no option except to advise the Specialized Companies Division to place the matter before the Executive Director concerned who is competent and has been duly allowed by the Commission to decide such matters. Since the application of the petitioner is pending before the Commission since June, 2004, it must be disposed of within fourteen days after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 5(5)
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33
S.R.O.161(1)/2004, dated' 17-3-2004
Rejection of application for renewal of Investment Advisory Licence
Scope
Appellant corporation had alleged that it was not granted art opportunity of being heard before rejection of application--Power to renew or refuse renewal of Investment Advisory Licence under R.5(5) of Non-Banking Finance Companies (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2003 had been delegated by the Commission to Executive Director (Specialized Companies Division) under S.R.O. 161(1)/2004 dated 17-3-2004
No decision or order of competent Authority was available on record which was conveyed to the appellant
Assistant Director did not have the power or authority to refuse renewal of licence
Decision conveyed by Assistant Director being not a lawful order, Specialized Companies Division was advised to place the matter before Executive Director concerned who was competent and had been duly allowed by the Commission to decide such matters
Application pending before the Commission since long, should have been disposed of within specified period after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Judgment & Decree
1. This Appeal No. 22 of 2004 has been filed under section 33 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 by Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Limited (PICIC). Brief facts of the case are that PICIC was granted an Investment Advisory licence on 23-6-2003 under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and Non-Banking Finance Companies (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2003 (NBFC A Rules). In early June, 2004 PICIC formed a subsidiary known as PICIC Asset Management Company Ltd. which was also granted Investment Advisory licence by the Commission on 24-6-2004. On 7-7-2004 PICIC applied to the Commission for renewal of its own Investment Advisory licence. However, this request for renewal of PICIC's licence was turned down vide a letter dated 26-7-2004 written by respondent No.
1. PICIC has preferred the instant appeal against this decision of refusal to renew the licence.
2. On the hearing date Mr. Kazin' Hassan, Advocate appeared on behalf of PICIC and Ms. Farah Qamar appeared for the respondents. 'The preliminary arguments by Mr. Hassan revealed that PICIC had not been granted an opportunity of being heard. It also transpires that the power to renew or refuse the renewal of the Investment Advisory licence under Rule 5(5) of the NBFC Rules has been delegated by the Commission to the Executive Director (Specialized Companies Division) under S.R.O. 161(I)/2004 dated 17-3-2004, however there is no decision or order of the competent authority on record which B was conveyed to PICIC. Clearly respondent No.1 does not have the power or authority to refuse the renewal of the licence to PICIC. The decision conveyed by respondent No.1 is, therefore, not a lawful order. Under the circumstances we have no option except to advise the Specialized Companies Division to place the matter before the Executive Director concerned who is competent and has been duly allowed by the Commission to decide such matters. Since the application of the petitioner is pending before the Commission since June, 2004, it must be disposed of within fourteen days after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. H.B.T./19/SEC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.