Concurrent jurisdiction

2022 PLD 278 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 15Court in which suit is to be institutedConcurrent jurisdictionScopeSection 15 of the C.P.C. provides that every suit shall be instituted in a Court of lowest grade competent to try it

Primary reason, amongst many, is that a right of appeal may be available before appellate forum, which forum is asked to exercise concurrent jurisdiction

Concurrent jurisdiction can only be exercised in exceptional cases; it could also be exercised when an appeal is being heard and orders are required to be passed as being from original court/forum, for exercise of concurrent jurisdiction.

2020 CLC 454 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Administration of justiceForeign courtConcurrent jurisdictionComity, principle ofApplicability

Comity does not demand of a court possessing jurisdiction to abdicate its duty to decide a dispute in favour of a foreign court possessing concurrent jurisdiction

It would be a dereliction of duty if former declines to adjudicate so as to enable a 'forum non conveniens' court to proceed with hearing of a lis filed or intended to be filed before it.

2020 CLC 839 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 167 & 173Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 62(1)(f) & 199Constitutional petitionQuo warranto, writ ofDisqualification of candidateMis-statementConcurrent jurisdictionPetitioner was voter and had sought disqualification of respondent who was notified as Member of Provincial AssemblyPlea raised by petitioner was that he made mis-declaration regarding his educational qualificationValidity

Conduct of elections under the Constitution was sole responsibility of Election Commission of Pakistan hence all elections were conducted by such Constitutional body

Election Commission of Pakistan as Constitutional body fell within the definition of "person carrying on affairs of Federation" for the purposes of Art. 199 of Constitution

Election Commission of Pakistan had its principal establishment at Islamabad with regional offices in four Provinces

Notification of a returned candidate was issued by principal office of Election Commission of Pakistan and record as well as affairs of all elected representatives whether of parliament (National Assembly and Senate) or provincial assemblies were regulated by Election Commission of Pakistan from Islamabad

Islamabad Capital Territory in such matters had concurrent jurisdiction with provincial High Court

High Court declared respondent as disqualified from holding position of Member Provincial Assembly under Art. 62(1)(f) of Constitution, as he wrongfully mentioned his qualification as Bachelors of Business Administration and made false declaration

High Court directed Election Commission of Pakistan to de-notify respondent as successful candidate

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2019 CLC 1539 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 9Rules Under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.5(6)Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 21Maintenance allowanceConcurrent jurisdictionDecision of Arbitration Council to be taken by majorityScope

Respondent filed petition under S. 9 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 for recovery of maintenance allowance which was allowed and maintenance allowance of Rs. 40,000 per month was fixed

Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed appeal which was allowed and maintenance was decreased to Rs. 20,000 per month

Contentions of petitioner were that after promulgation of Family Courts Act, 1964, the Arbitration Council had no jurisdiction to fix maintenance allowance and that under R. 5(6) of Rules Under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 all decisions had to be taken by majority

Validity

Section 21 of Family Courts Act, 1964 provided that nothing contained therein would affect any of the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 or Rules framed thereunder

Arbitration Council and Family Court had concurrent jurisdiction in family matters, which fell within their respective domain

Remedy of maintenance allowance under S. 9 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 was in addition to seeking any other remedy available under the law

Same matter, however, could not proceed simultaneously under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and Family Courts Act, 1964 but subsequent proceedings under any of the laws were not barred merely because earlier proceedings were launched and concluded under the other law

Perusal of impugned order revealed that representative of respondent agreed with the decision of Chairman Arbitration Council whereas the representative of petitioner was absent, hence it was a majority decision under R. 5(6) of the Rules Under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961

Petitioner's earnings being reasonable, maintenance allowance was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable warranting interference through constitutional petition

Petitioner had failed to place on record any document regarding his exact income

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2017 MLD 1204 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 498Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 147, 148 & 149Qatl-i-amd attempt to commit qatl-i-amdPre-arrest bailProcedureConcurrent jurisdiction

Person, against whom a case was registered, at the first instance, would approach the original court having jurisdiction i.e. sessions court in the matter of bail before arrest

Said rule was not absolute as depending upon the compelling circumstances of each case, accused could approach directly to the High Court by invoking the concurrent jurisdiction.

2013 PTD 851 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.161 & 235Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2Suit for declaration and injunctionInterim injunction, grant ofAdvance income tax, collection ofConcurrent jurisdictionSecond notificationScopePlaintiff company was aggrieved of notices issued by defendants for recovery of advance income tax collected by itValidity

Federal Board of Revenue had no power or jurisdiction to issue second notification, whereby it had purported to confer concurrent jurisdiction in terms of S. 161 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, on Commissioner of another zone, in case of advance income tax collected under S. 235 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Such jurisdiction vested only as originally conferred in terms of first notification i.e. alone in the Commissioner zone concerned

Plaintiff had made out a case for interim relief, as equities were in its favour and there was a prima facie case

To allow Deputy Commissioner of another zone to proceed on the basis of demand notices would be to encourage continuance of proceedings in a manner that was contrary to mandatory provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and would be detrimental to rule of law and such act of defendants was prima facie without jurisdiction

Balance of convenience was in favour of plaintiff company and it might suffer irreparable loss and injury if on the one hand it continued to be deprived of huge sums by way of refund due to it and taken from it by State by way of tax revenue and on the other was required to hand over to the State amount that would comprise of tax revenue

Demand notices issued by Deputy Commissioner of another zone were suspended and Commissioner of that other zone was restrained from taking any action in terms of S. 161 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, in respect of advance tax collected by plaintiff under S. 235 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Application was allowed accordingly.

2013 CLD 1313 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Concurrent jurisdictionSpecial Courts/Tribunals

Where two courts had concurrent jurisdiction on the subject matter of a controversy, the parties to the dispute may by agreement agree to invoke jurisdiction of one court; however, such proposition would not be attracted where jurisdiction was conferred exclusively with a Special Court or Tribunal created under a special enactment /statute.