2002 PLP 1388 (CLD)
Dr. SAMI ULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus WASI ULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1388 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Appellate Bench Security and Exchange Commission |
| Bench Members | N.K. Shahani and Abdul Rehman Qureshi, Commissioners |
| Parties | Dr. SAMI ULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus WASI ULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997)‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1388 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997)‑‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1388 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Appellate Bench Security and Exchange Commission bench comprising: N.K. Shahani and Abdul Rehman Qureshi, Commissioners.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1388 (CLD) (Dr. SAMI ULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus WASI ULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asad Ullah Javed for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th February, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 20 & 33‑‑‑Appeal before Appellate Bench of the Commission‑‑‑Jurisdiction of the Commission ‑‑‑Scope‑‑ Appellant (a non‑member of Stock Exchange) in his complaint alleged that respondent (a previous member of Stock Exchange) had fraudulently extracted certain amount as consideration for transferring him the latter's leasehold right in a room in Stock Exchange building knowing that same could not be transferred to him as a non‑member‑‑ Commissioner concluded that appellant had no right to said room and that issue of recovering money paid to respondent did not concern a securities related transaction falling outside the ambit of Security and Exchange Commission's jurisdiction‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Subject‑matter of appeal was not within the jurisdiction of the Commission‑‑‑View of the Commissioner that complainant‑appellant had no rights to said room as expressed in impugned order was of no legal effect‑‑‑Appellant might seek redress before the appropriate forum‑‑‑Appellate Bench of the Commission disposed of the appeal accordingly. Syed Aamir Masood, Director (S‑III) arid Ms. Sumbul Naveed Quershi, Junior Executive for the Commissioner.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal filed by the appellant, Dr. Sami Ullah, against the order (impugned order) passed on 4th December, 2001 by Commissioner, Securities Market (SM) Division of the Commission.
2. The appellant, Dr. Sami Ullah, alleges that his brother, Mr. Safi Ullah, then a member of Lahore Stock Exchange (LSE) fraudulently extracted a sum of Rs.3,500,000 purportedly as consideration for the latter's leasehold rights in room No. M‑10 in L.S.E. Building at Lahore (room), knowing that the same could not be transferred to him as a non‑member. When Mr. Safi Ullah's membership was cancelled on being declared a defaulter and was required to vacate the room, he transferred the same to the respondent, Mr. Wasi Ulalh, another brother of the appellant and member of the L.S.E., with separate offices at Room No.209 in the same L.S.E. Building. Although the appellant agreed to such a transfer, as stated in his complaint, dated 13th April, 2001 to the Commission, he could not recover moneys paid by him since the respondent sold the room. After affording the relevant parties an opportunity of hearing, the learned Commissioner (SM) concluded that the appellant has no rights to the said room and further, the issue of recovering money paid to Mr. Safi Ullah, in a case which does not concern a securities related transaction, falls well outside the ambit of SEC's jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the decision of one Commissioner, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Commission under section 33 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997.
3. The appeal came up for hearing before us on 12th February, 2002. While Mr. Asad Ullah Javed, Advocate, representing the respondent submitted that the appeal merits dismissal since determination of leasehold rights in property does not fall within the purview of the Commission, Syed Aamir Masood, Director, SM of the Commission dilated on arguments contained in the impugned order.
4. After carefully considering the arguments of the respondent, the content of the impugned order and the documents available, we are of the considered view that the subject‑matter of this appeal is not within the scope and jurisdiction of the Commission and the view that the complainant has no rights to room M‑10 expressed in the impugned order is of no legal effect. The appellant may seek redress before the appropriate forum. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. S.A.K./8/SEC Appeal disposed of.