Authenticity

2025 CLD 1732 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 14(1) proviso to, 14(7), 24(3) & 28(2)Composition of Competition Commission of Pakistan ('Commission')Absence / vacancy of member(s) of the CommissionEffectConducting of proceedings by the Commission while not being in quorumAuthenticityScope

Whether the Commission is authorized to conduct the proceedings as per S. 14 of the Competition Act , 2010 ('the Act 2010'), which requires a minimum of five members to constitute Commission?

Held: According to proviso to S. 14(1) of the Act 2010, the Federal Government may increase or decrease the number of members from time to time as it may consider appropriate; additionally, it has been specifically provided in S. 14(7) of the Act 2010 that no proceedings shall be invalid because of a vacancy or defect in the constitution of the Commission; furthermore, under the provisions of S. 24(3) of the Act, 2010, the statutory quorum for meetings of the Commission is of three members

Pertinently, the Parliament, in its wisdom, has authorized the Commission, under subsection (2) of S. 28 of the Act, 2010, to delegate any or all of its powers and functions to its members and officers

The provisions under Ss. 14(1), 14(7) ,24(3) and 28(2) of the Act, 2010 ensure the Commission's effective and continuous functioning by providing flexibility in its composition and safeguarding its decisions from invalidation due to technical or procedural issues

Procedural defects do not invalidate acts unless explicitly stated by the statute

Thus, by virtue of S. 14(7) of the Act 2010, the Parliament has intended to maintain the Commission's functional continuity and stability, preventing challenges based on procedural technicalities which could otherwise be used to obstruct its functioning, which (legislative scheme) clearly allows the Commission's decisions to remain valid during periods of a member's absence or vacancy ensuring uninterrupted regulatory or oversight activities

Argument of the Respondents/Undertakings regarding the quorum and legality of the instant proceedings could not be accepted and the instant proceedings were, in pith and substance, in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 2010.

2016 SCMR 862 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Transaction made by "Pardanasheen" ladyAuthenticityProof

Conditions to be fulfilled to establish authenticity of a transaction made by/with a Pardanasheen" lady stated.

2016 SCMR 700 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Property, allotment ofDispute between daughter and son (litigants) over ownership of two properties allotted to their fatherLease in favour of daughter in respect of one such property ("disputed property")AuthenticitySon acquiescing to such grant of lease and also relinquishing his claim over disputed propertyParents of litigants also intended that their daughter should have exclusive possession of disputed propertyEven under laws of inheritance daughter was entitled to 2/3rd share in disputed property

Daughter lived in disputed property with her children during her lifetime and also raised construction thereon with her own financial resources

Daughter was entitled to exclusive ownership of disputed property in such circumstances.

2016 PCrLJ 638 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ossification testAuthenticity

Ossification test is though based upon guess forming opinion after examination of X-rays of wrist joints but it can hardly be variative of one year and not beyond that.

2014 YLR 2481 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 13Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181Pre-emption suitPower of attorneyAuthenticityProofRequirementsDecree and execution petition, setting aside ofFraudLimitationScopeNon-deposit of entire amount fixed by court by pre-emptorEffect

Contention of judgment-debtor was that execution petitions were not signed by the Presiding Officer and pre-emptor had failed to deposit decretal amount before the target date fixed by the court

Validity

Neither stamp paper, whereupon the alleged power of attorney was scribed, was purchased by the judgment debtor nor he signed the same

Burden of proof was on the beneficiary of power of attorney which had been denied by the attorney but respondents had failed to rebut the same through cogent and reliable evidence

No witness had been produced in order to prove the authenticity of alleged power of attorney and in absence of the same no such authenticity could be attached to the same

Cutting and missing of signatures of Presiding Officer on the final order sheets were on record which had created doubt with regard to compromise entered between the parties

No specific provision in the Limitation Act, 1908 or in C.P.C. existed with regard to period of limitation to challenge a decree, however, Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908 would be applicable in such like cases

Fraud would vitiate even solemn proceedings and period of limitation to challenge decree would start from the date of knowledge

Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. could be filed within three years and present petition was within time

Impugned decree was effective only when decree holder deposited the amount on or before the date fixed by the court failing which suit should stand dismissed

Decree holder (pre-emptor) failed to deposit the entire amount fixed by the court rather he had deposited a deficit amount

Suit would be dismissed if pre-emptor had failed to deposit the amount fixed by the court and court passing the decree had no power to amend the order with regard to deposit of amount or allow the decree holder to make the deficiency good after the target date

Suits decreed in favour of respondents stood dismissed as pre-emptor had failed to deposit the total amount before the target date

Man could tell a lie but not the documents

Impugned decrees and execution petitions were set aside and pre-emption suits stood dismissed in circumstances.

2014 MLD 612 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.42Suit for declarationPrivate settlement of disputeAuthenticityDispute between the parties was already settled in JirgaPlaintiff subsequently filed suit for declaration and partition against the same propertySuit was decreed in favour of plaintiff but appellate Court set aside the judgment and dismissed the suitValidity

Private arrangement and partition deserved the same sanctity which a lawful contract deserved and should not be interfered with in any legal proceedings unless the private arrangement or partition was otherwise not legally permissible

Private arrangement had been duly taken place and was acted upon by the parties and the petitioner could not turn around and question authenticity of same through asking for fresh petition before any court of law

Revision was dismissed.