Mandatory requirements

2022 PLD 508 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.23 (1)Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015, Rr. 16 & 18Election disputeNomination papersMandatory requirementsDeclaration of assets, non-filing ofJoint nomination papersEffect

Petitioners were aggrieved of rejection of their nomination papers for failure to file their declarations of assets and filing of joint nomination papers

Validity

Non-compliance of mandatory provision of R.16(3) of Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015 and non-filing of declaration of assets on solemn affirmation by petitioners, was defect of substantial nature that could not be remedied under proviso to R.18(3) of Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015

Nomination papers of petitioners were liable to be rejected under R.18(3)(c) of Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015, as it specifically provided such consequence in case of non-compliance of R.16 of Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015

In absence of name of candidate and signature of his seconder, his nomination form could not be deemed to have been filed in prescribed form and such was a substantial defect

Joint nomination could not be filed independently or singly which was liable to be rejected under R.18(3)(c) of Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015

Candidate contesting Local Government Elections under Sindh Local Government Act, 2013 was required to disclose/declare his assets on solemn affirmation in prescribed form at the time of filing his nomination papers

Such requirement was mandatory and in case of non-compliance nomination papers were liable to be rejected

High Court declined to interfere in orders passed by Returning Officers

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2020 CLD 977 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 9Suit for recovery of finance facilityMandatory requirementsScope

Plaintiff, as per S. 9(3) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, while filing the suit is required to specify (a) the amount of finance availed by the defendant from the Financial Institution (b) amounts paid by the defendant to the Financial Institution with dates of payment and (c) the amount of finance and other amounts relating to finance payable by the defendant up to the date of institution of the suit.

2020 PCrLJN 165 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

R. 6Report of result of test or analysisMandatory requirementsScope

Requirements of R. 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 are mandatory and if the same are not complied with, the report of Government Analyst loses its reliability and evidentiary value

Non-compliance of R. 6 and absence of any of the enumerated mandatory elements/requirements frustrate the purpose and object of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2020 MLD 1344 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.364Examination of accusedMandatory requirements

Provisions of S.364, Cr.P.C. are mandatory and any illegality occasioned thereof is not curable.

2019 SCMR 930 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

R.6Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 36(1)NarcoticsGovernment analyst report, preparation ofMandatory requirements

Report of the Government Analyst, prepared in consequence of R. 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, must provide for, firstly, tests and analysis of the alleged drug; secondly, the results of the test(s) carried out, and, thirdly the test protocols applied to carry out these tests

Said three elements formed the fundamental and the core elements of a valid Report prepared by a Government Analyst

Non-compliance of R. 6 and absence of any of the said mandatory elements/requirements frustrated the purpose and object of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ('the Act'), thereby diminishing the reliability and evidentiary value of the Report

Under S. 36 of the Act, the report of the Government Analyst, whilst being admissible in evidence without formal proof, was rebuttable and could be questioned by the accused, inter alia, on the ground of non-compliance of the information required under R. 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001

Judgment reported as State v. Imam Bakhsh (2018 SCMR 2039) purposively interpreted the Act and (rightly) found R. 6 to be a mandatory provision regarding information to be reflected in the Report of the Analysts.

2019 CLC 533 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 144(1)(b)Election petitionAllegations of corrupt or illegal practiceMandatory requirementsScope

Under provision of S.144(1)(b) of Elections Act, 2017 full particulars of any corrupt or illegal practice or other allegedly committed illegal act, including names of persons who alleged to have committed such corrupt or illegal practice or illegal act as well as date, time and place of commission of such practice or act is mandatorily be specifically mentioned in the election petition.

2019 PTD 187 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 32(2)Show-cause noticeMandatory requirementScope

Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) after clearance of goods passed reassessment order and issued demand notice for recovery of short paid amount of duty and taxes due to inadvertence of Customs officials

Validity

Such type of recovery could only be made by passing an order after issuance of show-cause notice under S. 32(3), Customs Act, 1969

No show-cause notice had been issued, in the present case, despite mandated under the law, issuance of show cause notice being a pre-requisite could not be dispensed with under any circumstances

Recovery/demand notice communicated through reassessment order having been issued in isolation/vacuum, such was without any lawful authority hence, null and void ab initio.

2018 CLC 648 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

O. XX, R. 5 & O. XLI, R. 31Judgment of Appellate CourtMandatory requirementsScope

Judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court which does not qualify test and requirements of law and there is no decision with regard to each point which is main requirement, has no effect.

2017 CLD 29 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9 & 10Suit for recovery of financeMandatory requirementsNecessary information, non-mentioning ofBank filed suit for recovery of finances advanced to defendants against three facilities

Necessary details of finances advanced to defendants were not given, in suit filed by Bank, whereas defendants also failed to give necessary information

Effect

Plaintiff, at the time of filing suit had full opportunity to comply with mandatory requirements of S. 9(2) & (3) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, but it failed in doing so

Defendants also had full opportunity to comply with mandatory requirements of S. 10(4) & (5) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, at the time of filing application for leave to defend but they failed in availing such opportunity

Plaintiff as well as defendants were bound to face consequences of their non-compliance

High Court dismissed petition for leave to defend the suit filed by defendants as it did not comply with mandatory requirements of S. 10(4) & (5) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and suit was dismissed to the extent of two facilities as plaint did not comply with mandatory requirements of S. 9(2) & (3) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, in respect of such two facilities

Suit was decreed accordingly.

2016 PTD 2924 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 131Appeal to Appellate TribunalMandatory requirements

While filing appeal, it was mandatory for tax payer to send briefs consisting of grounds of appeal, assessment order, appellate order and a copy of appeal memo and it may be ensured by the higher authorities that Departmental Representatives appearing must be well prepared and with all relevant records so that they may protect interest of revenue and assist in dispensation of justice.

2014 CLC 706 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 24(1)(2), 27 & 28Right of pre-emptionMandatory requirements

Pre-emption right being a feeble right, pre-emptor seeking exercise of such right was bound to perform and fulfil its requirements meticulously and any failure in that behalf would deprive him of success in getting a pre-emption decree.