Subsequent events

2023 CLC 182 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Subsequent eventsPrincipleHigh Court can take notice of events which take place during pendency of proceedings

Where due to subsequent events original relief sought becomes inappropriate for deciding the controversy, amendment can be allowed to shorten litigation.

2016 CLD 134 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 183Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, R. 25Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilitySubsequent eventsPress publicationGrievance of petitioner was with regard to appointment of Managing Director

Objection raised by petitioner was that during pendency of constitutional petition, an advertisement was published seeking application for appointment of a Managing Director and notification of expansion of Board of Directors

Validity

Such press publication could be taken into consideration as no prejudice was caused

Such act of authorities had a direct nexus with cause of action disclosed in petition and covered within the ambit of prayer sought

After withdrawal of notification dated 29-9-2014 the proceedings had not become suo motu in nature

Objection was ruled out in circumstances.

2016 CLD 134 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 183Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, R. 25Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilitySubsequent eventsPress publicationManaging Director, appointment of

Petitioner was one of the independent members of Board of Directors of National Transmission and Dispatch Company Limited (NTDCL)

Grievance of petitioner was with regard to interference of Federal Government with regard to appointment of Managing Director

Validity

Administration and management of "NTDCL" was within the exclusive domain of its Board of Directors and the management, as provided under Companies Ordinance, 1984 and the rules made thereunder

Any interference by Federal Government or any other Public Sector Company in administrative matters and management was ultra vires the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and the rules made thereunder

Notification dated 29-9-2014, advertisement dated 3-11-2014 seeking candidates for appointment of Managing Director "NTDCL", notification dated 15-4-2015 purportedly expanding the Board of Directors and appointing one Ex-officio member and four private members, were ultra vires the Companies Ordinance, 1984

Corporate Notifications were issued by Federal Government in violation of mandatory provisions of Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, instead of placing matters before Board of Directors and thereafter adopting process of scrutiny for determination of 'fit and proper criteria'

Provisions of Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013 were mandatory and strict compliance therewith was an obligation of every stakeholder of NTDCL, particularly the Federal Government

NTDCL was to be governed and managed under Companies Ordinance, 1984 and the rules made thereunder

High Court declared that Federal Government had no discretion, exclusive authority or right to make appointments or remove members of Board of Directors

High Court directed the authorities to strictly comply with the provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013 and Articles of Association of NTDCL

Petition was allowed accordingly.

2013 CLC 6 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Subsequent eventsPower of court

While lis is pending, court can take notice of subsequent events and pass appropriate orders in order to do substantial justice.

2012 YLR 74 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 17Ejectment of tenantBona fide personal needProofSubsequent eventsLetting out the premisesLandlord sought ejectment of tenant on the plea of bona fide personal need for himselfValidityNo need for establishing anything else except that landlord needed the premises for his personal need

Landlord did not have to give any further details as to how he would utilize the same as residential premises was to be utilized for residential purpose only

Subsequent events could be taken into consideration by Rent Controller

Failure of landlord to occupy premises without any justification recoiled against his plea of landlord

Bona fide need of landlord was not proved in circumstances.

2011 SCMR 513 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 185(3)Subsequent eventsScope

Supreme Court can look into subsequent events.

2010 SCMR 1825 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Subsequent eventsScope

Superior courts have ample jurisdiction to look into subsequent events at the time of deciding of case.

2010 PLD 487 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 115, O. VII, R.11 & O. XXXVII, Rr.1, 2Rejection of plaintAbsence of cause of actionSubsequent eventsEffect

Defendant issued cheques in favour of plaintiff and the cheques were dishonoured on the basis of which the suit had been filed

Defendant sought rejection of plaint on the basis of agreements arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the suit

Validity

From the contents of the suit, a cause of action was disclosed in favour of plaintiff

Effect of subsequent events and disclosure of certain facts including execution of agreements, the circumstances and purpose for which the agreements were executed would be subject-matter of examination by Trial Court in the light of evidence produced before it

Trial Court, after recording of evidence of both parties would also be competent to determine the effect of the agreements on the suit filed by plaintiff

In view of the emergence of subsequent agreements, the cause of action in favour of plaintiff did not cease to exist and the suit under the provisions of O.XXXVII, C.P.C. was not liable to be dismissed and was sustainable

Order passed by Trial Court did not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2010 MLD 1460 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2Interim injunction, grant ofSubsequent events

Court, in appropriate circumstances, can take into consideration events subsequent to institution of suit while considering relief, if any, to which plaintiff may be entitled.