2002 PLP 1464 (CLD)
RAHIM JAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1464 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | RAHIM JAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1464 (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 2002 PLP 1464 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1464 (CLD) (RAHIM JAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irfan Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 29‑10‑2001 passed in Commercial Appeal No. 2 of 2001). ‑‑‑S.34‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 29‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Appeal before High Court ‑‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑‑Failure to file appeal within limitation provided under S.34 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997‑‑‑Petitioner, instead of filing appeal within sixty days against order of the Commission, preferred Constitutional petition before High Court which was withdrawn and the appeal was filed‑‑‑High Court dismissed the appeal being time‑barred‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Petitioner had the knowledge of the date having been fixed by the Commission in the case and even if he was not able to appear on the date fixed, nothing was said in the application for condonation of delay as to what prevented him from filing the appeal within period of limitation before the High Court‑‑‑View taken by the High Court in the judgment that the appeal was barred by time did not suffer from any legal infirmity and Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑The appeal filed on 21‑9‑2001 by the petitioner before the High Court under section 34 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, against the order of the Commission, dated 30‑5‑2001 has been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 29‑10‑2001 by the said Court as barred by time. It has been held that by virtue of section 29 of the Limitation Act, section 5 of the said Act was not attracted to the said appeal for the purpose of condonation of delay.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find that against the order, dated 30‑5‑2001 of the Commission, the petitioner was obliged to file appeal within 60 days but instead of doing that, he filed Constitutional petition before the High Court on 20‑9‑2001 which was withdrawn on the next day i.e. 21‑9‑2001 and thereafter the appeal before the High Court was filed.
3. We have examined the application made by the petitioner before the High Court for condonation of delay and find that he himself had admitted that he had the knowledge of the date having been fixed by the Commission in the case as 30‑5‑2001 and even if he was not able to appear on the said date, nothing was said in the application as to what prevented him from filing the appeal within period of limitation before the High Court.
4. The view taken by the Lahore High Court in the impugned judgment that the appeal was barred by time does not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed, and leave refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./R‑43/S Petition dismissed.