Home Maxims & Terms Finality meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Finality

Finality legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2024 CLD 1412 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent
Ss.10(7), 16(10)& 464(5)Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) [since repealed], S.468Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33Order passed by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan ('the Commission')FinalityScope and effectAppeal before the Appellate Bench of the CommissionMaintainabilityJurisdiction of the Civil Court / other authoritiesScope

Appeal before the Appellate Bench of the Commission was filed against an order having been passed by the Commission in year 2023, under S.464(4)(b) of the Companies Act , 2017

Contention of the appellant was that by virtue of S.464(5) of the Companies Act, 2017, only the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and other authorities is excluded

Validity

Contention of the appellant is misconceived in the context of the overall regime of the company law as there are only three provisions in the Companies Act, 2017, i.e. Ss.10(7), 16(10) & 464(5), where orders passed by the Commission attain finality

Owing to the nature of the subject matter that all the said provisions deal with the legislative intent through use of words "shall be final and shall not be called in question before any Court or other authority" appears to be quite clear in the said provisions and, thus, the same leaves no room for any ambiguity that the connotation of the term 'final' in S.464(5) of the Companies Act, 2017, is amplified by the words "shall not be called in question before any court or other authority "

Appellate Bench was of the view that subsection (5) of S.464 of the Companies Act ,2017 expressly barred calling in question final order of the Commission passed under subsection (4) of S.464 of the Companies Act, 2017

Appeal, being non-maintainable, is dismissed.

2014 PLD 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
S. 25(b)Plea bargainFinality

Order made under S.25(b) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, is subject to approval of Trial Court or Appellate Court, as the case may be and is not subject to challenge because nothing has been provided in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, in such regard.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Finality", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124944535

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Finality"

PTD 2025
Appeal No. 674 of 2025, decided on 17th July, 2025.

2025 P T D (Trib

Messrs TAPE TOWN and others Versus NATIONAL TARIFF COMMISSION and another

Court: Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal
PTD 2008
9. The authorized Representative of the Directorate-General of Customs Valuation also raised some legal objections which need not be repeated here. With regard to the facts of the complaint it was stated that the declared transaction valuation of Wooden Starch Trays imported from Germany was considered to be on the lower side and it was felt necessary to verify the prices. The importer was asked to furnish requisite documents and sample of goods and three hearing not ices were electronically transmitted but nobody appeared for hearing. He did not respondent to the notices and the matter was decided on merits.

2008 P T D 1950

Messrs B.P. INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KARACHI Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION ISLAMABAD

Court: Federal Tax Ombudsman
MLD 2002
New No.C‑1464‑K of 2001 and Old Complaint No.C‑03‑K of 2001 2002, decided on 20th November, 2001.

2002 M L D 1098

Messrs DYNO PAKISTAN LTD. ‑‑‑Complainant Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Federal Tax Ombudsman
PTD 2004
Writ Petition No. 7865 of 2003, decided on 14th November, 2003.

2004 P T D 795

Messrs FAROOQ WOOLLEN MILLS Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS DRYPORT, SAMBRIAL and 2 others

Court: Lahore High Court
PLD 1960
Applications for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court, Nos. 91 and 92 of 1959, decided on 19th February 1960.

P L D 1960 Dacca 709

Khan Bahadur Haji BADI AHMED CHOWDHURY — Petitioner Versus THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Opposite‑Parties

Court:
PTD 2005
Constitutional Petition No. D-1003 of 2004, decided on 1st September, 2005.

2005 P T D 2573

Messrs WALL MASTER Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others

Court: Karachi High Court
PTD 2005
Special Customs Appeals Nos.568, 574 and 575 of 2004, decided on 3rd May, 2005.

2005 P T D 2116

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI Versus Messrs AUTO MOBILE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI

Court: Karachi High Court
PTD 2022
Special Customs Reference Applications Nos.450, 451, 452 and C.M.As. Nos.2557, 2558 of 2016, decided on 30th August, 2021.

2022 P T D 431

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS through Additional Collector of Customs Versus Messrs ALLIED ENGINEERING AND SERVICES LTD.

Court: Sindh High Court
PTD 2024
Constitutions Petition No.D-2184 of 2022, decided on 26th May, 2022.

2024 P T D 188

Messrs SIKANDAR & CO. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue and 2 others

Court: Sindh High Court
CLC 1989
First Rent Appeal 759 of 1988, decided on 19th March, 1988.

1989 C L C 1091

Mst. SAEEDA BEGUM and 3 others‑‑Appellants Versus AL‑HAJ SYED MASOOD AKHTAR‑‑Respondent

Court: Karachi