CLD 2020

2020 PLP 1440 (CLD)

WASIF M. KHAN — Appellant Versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CORPORATE AND SUPERVISION DEPARTMENT, SECP — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan
Decided Date
2019-December-30
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2020 PLP 1440 (CLD)
Forum / Court Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan
Bench Members N/A
Parties WASIF M. KHAN — Appellant Versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CORPORATE AND SUPERVISION DEPARTMENT, SECP — Respondent
Primary Law Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 1440 (CLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 1440 (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: 2020 PLP 1440 (CLD) (WASIF M. KHAN — Appellant Versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CORPORATE AND SUPERVISION DEPARTMENT, SECP — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997)

Representation

  • Tariq Ahmed, Additional Director (CSD) and Amir Saleem, Joint Director (CSD) for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 33

Appeal to the Appellate Bench of the Commission

Adjournment sine die

Scope

Appellant, being one of the Directors, was imposed a penalty

Appellant contended that he had filed a petition in the High Court for deletion of his name as Director which was pending adjudication and prayed that the proceedings in the appeal might be adjourned till the decision of the High Court

Validity

Held; no restraining order with respect to the proceedings was available before the Appellate Bench of the Commission, however, a decision by the High Court would resolve the controversy pending through the appeal

Appellant and respondent were directed to intimate the Appellate Bench about the decision of the High Court.

Judgment & Decree

5. Mr. Naseem Akhtar 50,000

6. Mr. Shahzad Salim 50,000

7. Mr. Wasif M.Khan 50,000 TOTAL 350,000 Under section 245(3): S. No. Names of Directors Amount in Rupees

1. Mr. Farooq Ahmed 10,000

2. Mr. Mehmood ur Rehman 10,000

3. Mr. Muhammad Ishaq Malik 10,000

4. Mr. Muhammad Taloot 10,000

5. Mr. Naseem Akhtar 10,000

6. Mr. Shahzad Salim 10,000

7. Mr. Wasif M.Khan 10,000 TOTAL 70,000

4. The Appellant had inter alia prayed that he was not the director of the Company, therefore, his name should be removed from the Impugned Order. The Appeal was fixed for hearing before the Appellate Bench (the Bench) on 28/11/19, wherein, the Appellant's Counsel argued that Civil Petition No. 155942/2018 (Civil Petition) pertaining to the deletion of name of the Appellant as director is pending adjudication before the honorable Lahore High Court (Court), therefore, proceedings in this Appeal may be adjourned till the decision of the Court.

5. The Bench has examined the record. Although there is no restraining order with respect to the proceedings before us, however, a decision by the Court in Civil Petition would resolve the controversy pending through this Appeal. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that the matter is sub judice before the Court and the Bench cannot proceed in the matter until such time proceedings pertaining to the Civil Petition have concluded. The Appellant and Respondent are directed to intimate to the Appellate Bench any order which is passed by the Court in the matter of Civil Petition. SA/12/SEC Order accordingly.