2023 PLP 1480 (CLD)
Appeal No. 5 of 2017
| Citation | 2023 PLP 1480 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Appeal No. 5 of 2017 |
| Primary Law | Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP 1480 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP 1480 (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: 2023 PLP 1480 (CLD) (Appeal No. 5 of 2017). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Jawwad Shekha for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 25
Companies Ordinance (VI of 2016) [since repealed], S. 508
Review of the order passed by the Appellate Bench
Scope
Appellate Bench dismissed an appeal filed by the company (Steel Mill) against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner
In said impugned order passed by the Appellate Bench, Applicant/Appellant sought review to remove the Bench's observation, (regarding appellant' request to take lenient view) for having been attributed to the Applicant/appellant
Contention of the Applicant/Appellant was that attributed observation/words in relevant para of the impugned order, be expunged as the same might affect it's (company's) integrity
Typographical error was actually observed in relevant para of the impugned order, wherein instead of the word "Respondent", inadvertently the word "Appellant" had been used, therefore, the Bench rectified the said error and word "Appellant" would be deemed and read as "Respondent"
Bench observed that the arguments by the parties were thoroughly heard and examined before the issuance of the impugned order, therefore, contention of the Applicant with regard to the observation of the Bench did not hold merit
Even otherwise, the parties could not deny the arguments put forth during the previous round of litigation
Application filed by the company/appellant to review impugned order passed by the Appellate Bench was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
1. This Order shall dispose of the Review Application No. 01 of 2019 filed by Messrs Peoples Steel Mills Limited (the Petitioner) through Mr. Muhammad Jawwad Shekha (the authorized Representative) against the Order dated April 19, 2019 (the Impugned Order) passed by the Appellate Bench (the Bench) in Appeal No. 5 of 2017 (the Appeal).
2. The brief faas of the case are that during the adjudication of the Appeal, the Bench upheld the Order dated December 14, 2016, passed by the Commissioner CCD under Rule 25 of the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules 2013 (the Rules) read with section 508(2) of the Companies Ordinance, 2016 whereby a penalty of Rs. 100,000/- was imposed on the Appellant.
3. The Petitioner has filed this Review to remove the Bench's observation contained in para 7 of the Impugned Order whereby it was held that "The Appellant's representative have requested the Bench to take a lenient view and they assured that if the Impugned Order is set aside or remanded, the Appellant will file the SOC and the Report." The Representative have stated that apparently the aforementioned observation has been inadvertently attributed to the Petitioner, therefore, requested to expunge these words as they may affect the Petitioner's and the authorized representative's integrity.
4. The Bench has observed a typographical error that in line 5 of paragraph 7 of the Impugned Order, instead of the word "Respondent" inadvertently the word "Appellant" has been used. Therefore, the Bench hereby rectifies the above mentioned error and word "Appellant" shall be deemed and read as "Respondent".
5. The Bench has reviewed the record and heard arguments from both parties. The Bench believes that the arguments presented by the parties were thoroughly heard and examined before the issuance of the Impugned Order. Therefore, the Petitioner or the Authorized representative's contention with regard to the observation of the Bench does not hold merit. Furthermore, parties cannot deny the arguments put forth during the previous round of litigation. In view thereof, we hereby dismiss this Review, without any order as to cost. MQ/3/SEC Review Application dismissed.