2021 PLP 775 (CLD)
MUHAMMAD IRFAN, CEO MIKON SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD. — Appellant Versus COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET\ DIVISION), SECP — Respondent
| Citation | 2021 PLP 775 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IRFAN, CEO MIKON SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD. — Appellant Versus COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET\ DIVISION), SECP — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 775 (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 2021 PLP 775 (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: 2021 PLP 775 (CLD) (MUHAMMAD IRFAN, CEO MIKON SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD. — Appellant Versus COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET\ DIVISION), SECP — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Osman Syed, Joint Director (Adjudication-1), Muhammad Faisal, Management Executive (Adjudication-1), Nasir Askar, Director (SMD), Muhammad Ali, Joint Director (SMD) and Asad Ullah Gondal, Deputy Director (SMD) for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 33
Appeal to the Appellate Bench of the Commission
Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution
Scope
Appellant assailed order passed by Commissioner, Securities Market Division under S. 152 of the Securities Act, 2015, read with Regln. 11 of the Securities Brokers (Licensing And Operations) Regulations, 2016
Appeal, on the first date of hearing, was adjourned on the request of appellant and the matter was re-fixed for hearing
Case was called on the said date and time; the department's representatives were present, however, the appellant failed to appear before the Bench nor any request for adjournment was received on his behalf
Hearing notice clearly stated that in case of non-appearance of either appellant or respondent before the Bench, the case could be decided in their absence
Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Judgment & Decree
1. This Order shall dispose of Appeal No. 01 of 2018 filed under section 33 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 against the Order dated 21/08/17 (the Impugned Order) passed by the Commissioner, Securities Market Division (the Respondent) under section 152 of the Securities Act, 2015 read with Regulation 11 of the Securities Brokers (Licensing and Operations) Regulations, 2016.
2. This Appeal was registered on 17/01/18 and Respondent's reply was received on 26/02/18. Since its registration, the Appeal has been fixed for hearing on 11/12/18 and 23/01/20. The hearing on 11/12/18 was adjourned on the Appellant's request and the matter was re-fixed for hearing on 23/01/20 at 3:30 p.m. The case was called on the said date and time; the department representatives for the Respondent were present, however, the Appellant failed to appear before the Appellate Bench nor any request for adjournment was received on his behalf. The hearing notice dated 09/01/20 clearly states that in case of non-appearance of either Appellant or Respondent before the Appellate Bench, the case may be decided in their absence. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed for non-appearance and non-prosecution. SA/32/SEC Appeal dismissed.