Summary: The scope of jurisdiction of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) for appointment of Inspectors to investigate the affairs of Companies, under Section 256 & 257 of the Companies Act, 2017. 1041Regular First Appeal (R.F.A) (Final Decree) 20881/23 National Highway Authority Vs Muhammad Afzal Bhatti etc Mr. Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi 03- 06- 2024 2024 LHC 2886 2024 CLC 1246 (Lahore)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Securities Act (III of 2015)--- ----Ss. 2(xix), 138, 139, 148 & 174---Companies Act (XIX of 2017), Ss. 301, 305 & 308---Petition to wind up a broker company---Maintainability---Company moving the Court in concert with its contributories---Scope and effect---Objection qua maintainability of the petition was raised as winding up petition was instituted, in concert with contributories, by a company licensed under S. 148 of the Securities Act, 2015, ('the Act 2015') issued by the Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan /SECP (Petitioners / Company)---Validity---Admittedly, the Company is not an ordinary Company but a licensed Company which is engaged in the further regulated business of selling, buying and dealing in securities on Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSE) under the license issued by SECP---As such, the operations of the Company are subject to regulatory regime of PSE as a frontline regulator and SECP as an apex regulator which regulates the PSE as well as the Company---Section 148 of the Act 2015, for regulation of the securities industries as well as the protection of investors, requires a licensed person not filing a petition for winding up unless it satisfies the SECP in the manner prescribed that it has settled all outstanding investors claims as per default regulations and has obtained prior approval of the SECP---Section 2(xix) of the Act 2015 defines 'Default Regulations' while Ss. 138 to 139 of the Act 2015 confer powers upon the SECP to inspect and investigate the affairs of a licensed person---In short, a comprehensive regulatory scheme is available to scrutinize the affairs of a licensed person for the protection of rights and interests of stakeholders and investors---Under S. 174 of the Act 2015, it is abundantly clear that provisions of the Securities Act, 2015, being a special law applicable to the Company, will pre-empt and take precedence to the provisions of winding up stipulated in the Companies Act, 2017 ('the Act 2017')---Record shows that SECP has invoked its investigative powers vested under S. 139 of the Act 2015 against the Company / petitioners and an investigation team has been constituted for said purpose and that the Company as a securities broker has defaulted against a host of its account holders and the victims are the public-at-large having as many as 197 unsettled claims against the Company and that the process of investigation is being delayed due to pendency of the present petition---Therefore, it is safely concluded that the Company has defaulted with respect to its liabilities towards the account holders and others---Default Regulations and investigation processes by PSE and SECP as regulators have already been triggered against the Company---Both the regulators have unequivocally opined that in the given circumstances, the winding up of the Company is not in public interest---Rather, the right to institute the winding up petition in terms of S. 148 of the Act 2015 under the given circumstances now vests with the SECP---As such, the institution of the present petition is clearly an attempt on the part of the petitioner to bypass the mandatory and special regulatory framework and evade their responsibilities and liabilities under the law---Hence, it is not just, equitable or in the public interest to wind up the Company particularly when other remedies are available to the petitioners and they are acting unreasonably in seeking winding up of the Company instead of availing and pursuing the other remedy as ordained in S. 308(2) of the Act, 2017---Therefore, the present petition instituted by the Company and its contributories is not maintainable, however, SECP as the apex regulator may file the winding up petition as and when in its opinion, it would be just and equitable to do so in terms of S. 148 of the Act, 2015 read with Ss. 304 & 305 of the Act, 2017---Winding up petition, being non-maintainable, was dismissed. (b) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)--- ----Ss.304(a) & 304(e)---Securities Act (III of 2015), Ss. 2(xix) & 148---Petition to wind up a broker company---Maintainability---Company moving the Court in concert with its contributories---Scope and effect---Objection qua maintainability of the petition was raised as the winding up petition was instituted, in concert with contributories, by a company licensed under S. 148 of the Securities Act, 2015, ('the Act 2015') issued by the Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan / SECP (Petitioners / Company)---Validity---Petition has been incompetently instituted by the Company and its contributories without complying with the prerequisites embodied in S. 304 of the Companies Act, 2017, ('the Act, 2017') for the reason that the number of members of the Company are not reduced below two which is one of the threshold prescribed under S. 304(a) of the Act, 2017 for the contributories to maintain the petition for winding up---Petition is also not maintainable in terms of S. 304(e) of the Act, 2017 on behalf of the Company since it did not furnish, in the prescribed manner, the particulars of its assets, liabilities, business operations and the suits or proceedings pending against it---A mere hand written one page was appended with the petition which lists assets twice than the liabilities of the Company which is in complete contrast to the averments in the petition that the substratum of the Company has been lost and it is not a going concern---The information is not only deficient but is also not substantiated on the basis of reliable documents such as audited accounts of the Company---The information is also in deep contrast to the information provided by the regulators which demonstrates that pertinent facts and particulars as required to be disclosed under S.304(e) of the Act, 2017 were concealed in the petition with mala fide intention---Petition is also not maintainable on behalf of the Company---Winding up petition, being non-maintainable, was dismissed. Muhammad Nawazish Ali Pirzada for Petitioners. Shezal Khan Burki for Respondent No.1. Ruman Bilal for Respondent No.2. Muhammad Ali Malik for Respondent No.5. Dilnawaz A. Cheema for Respondent No.647. Date of hearing: 3rd June, 2024.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Post Arrest Bail in FIR No. 79/2021 dated 09.10.2021 U/s 10, 11 PECA 2016 r/w 295A, 295B, 295C, 298A & 109 PPC P.S. FIA Cyber Crime Reporting Center, Islamabad

Summary: Background: This appeal under Section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, was filed by the appellants seeking to overturn the order dated September 20, 2016, of the Additional Rent Controller, Chaklala Cantonment. The appellants, claiming to be the landlords of house No. 342/6, Rafi Road, Tariqabad, Rawalpindi, sought eviction of the respondents based on personal bona fide need, default in payment of rent, and damage to the rented premises. -----Issues: 1- What is the rate of rent? 2- Whether the suit property is required by the petitioners in good faith for their personal requirement? 3- Whether the respondents are rent defaulters? 4- Whether the respondents have damaged the suit property and impaired its look, utility, and decreased its market value? 5- Whether the ejectment petition is not maintainable in view of preliminary objections raised by the respondents? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome ---Issue 1: Rate of Rent The Additional Rent Controller determined the rate of rent to be Rs. 1,200 per month, as claimed by the respondents. The appellants' claim of Rs. 6,000 per month was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court found no material to differ from the findings of the Additional Rent Controller. ---Issue 2: Personal Bona Fide Need The court held that the appellants failed to prove their personal bona fide need for the rented premises. The appellants had previously obtained possession of other properties on the same ground and recently moved to a new residence without indicating insufficient accommodation. This undermined their claim of bona fide need. ---Issue 3: Default in Payment of Rent The court found that the respondents defaulted in payment of rent from January 2013 onwards. The appellants’ assertion of default, supported by affidavit, shifted the burden of proof to the respondents. The rent receipt provided by the respondents was not admissible, as it was introduced through counsel’s statement without proper testimony. ---Issue 4: Damage to Suit Property The court did not specifically address this issue in the detailed reasoning, focusing instead on the default in payment of rent as a sufficient ground for eviction. ---Issue 5: Maintainability of Ejectment Petition The court did not find merit in the respondents' preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the ejectment petition. The appeal was allowed, and the order dated September 20, 2016, was set aside. The ejectment petition was accepted, and the respondents were directed to hand over vacant possession of the rented premises to the appellants within thirty days. ----Citations/Precedents Mst. Akhtar Sultana vs. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 715): Discussed the relevance and admissibility of documentary evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. vs. Misri Khan (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 749): Addressed the inadmissibility of documents produced without proper testimony. National Command Authority vs. Zahoor Azam (2024 CLC 1): Reiterated principles regarding the recording of evidence and admissibility of documents in court proceedings. ----Quote: Ejectment petition under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 on three grounds i.e. default in payment of rent, personal bona-fide need and damage to the rented premises was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller, Chaklala Cantonment but this appeal was allowed only on ground of default in payment of rent because the rent of receipt was produced by the tenant in the statement of his counsel which is not permissible under the law.

Summary: Bail granted --- Muhammad Anwar, the petitioner, seeks leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's decision denying his pre-arrest bail. The case centers on an FIR filed under Section 489-F PPC, involving a property transaction and a cheque issued by Anwar that was dishonoured due to his account being dormant. ---Issues: 1. Whether the cheque issued by Muhammad Anwar was intended as a guarantee rather than for payment, affecting the applicability of Section 489-F PPC. 2. The nature of the obligation associated with the dishonoured cheque and whether it fulfills the criteria for a criminal offense under Section 489-F PPC. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and granted bail to Muhammad Anwar, citing a misinterpretation of the intent and purpose of the cheque, which was used as a security guarantee rather than for payment. The Court referenced previous decisions, emphasizing that not every dishonoured cheque constitutes a criminal offense under Section 489-F PPC, particularly when the cheque is not directly tied to the repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation. ---Citations/Precedents: Mian Allah Ditta v. The State and others (2013 SCMR 51): Clarified that not all transactions involving dishonoured cheques constitute an offense under Section 489-F PPC unless specific criteria are met. Abdul Rasheed v. The State, etc [2023 SCMR 1948]: Discussed the misuse of Section 489-F PPC for the purpose of debt recovery. [PLD 2022 SC 475]: Stated the principle that granting bail is preferable to denying it, as wrongful detention cannot be compensated, unlike the potential rectification of an erroneous bail decision upon final conviction.

Summary: Equity Master Securities (Pvt.) Limited, along with three other petitioners (the Chief Executive Officer and Directors), sought to wind up the company under court supervision citing Sections 301 and 305 of the Companies Act, 2017. The petitioners claimed that due to economic difficulties, unpaid dues, legal challenges, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the company's equity had turned negative, making it unsustainable to continue operations. The company had passed a special resolution for winding up, which was filed with the Company Registration Office of the Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP). Issues: Whether the petition for winding up the company is maintainable under the Companies Act, 2017, given the regulatory requirements and obligations under the Securities Act, 2015, particularly Section 148. Whether the company fulfilled the necessary prerequisites, including settling all outstanding investor claims and obtaining prior approval from SECP, to file a winding up petition. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found the petition not maintainable, emphasizing that the company, being a licensed entity under strict regulatory oversight, failed to satisfy the conditions laid out under the Securities Act for winding up. Notably, the company did not settle all outstanding claims of investors or obtain the necessary approval from SECP before initiating the petition. The petition was also seen as an attempt to circumvent the regulatory mechanism and frustrate ongoing investigations into the company's affairs by SECP. Consequently, the court dismissed the winding up petition, stating that it was not just, equitable, or in the public interest to allow the company to wind up under these circumstances. ----Citations/Precedents: Sections 301 and 305 of the Companies Act, 2017 - Provide the legal framework for winding up a company by the court. Section 148 of the Securities Act, 2015 - Stipulates conditions under which a licensed company may file for winding up, including the requirement to settle all investor claims and obtain prior approval from SECP. Sections 304 and 305 of the Companies Act, 2017 - Outline the rights and prerequisites for instituting a winding up petition, including requirements for a company and its contributories. Section 308(2) of the Companies Act, 2017 - Allows the court to dismiss a winding up petition if it finds the petitioners are acting unreasonably.

Summary: The National Highway Authority (NHA) appealed a decision by the Senior Civil Judge of Gujranwala, which granted enhanced compensation to Muhammad Afzal Bhatti for land acquired for the Lahore-Sialkot Motorway project. The court had previously set the compensation at Rs. 20,00,000 per acre along with additional benefits including compound interest and acquisition charges, based on a Reference Application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. ----Issues: 1. Was the enhanced compensation determined by the Referee Court justified? 2. Was the documentary evidence produced by the respondent admissible, and did it substantiate the claim for higher compensation? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court examined the method of determining land compensation and the admissibility of documentary evidence exhibited during the counsel's statement, which lacked cross-examination. Despite recognizing the usual inadmissibility of such evidence without proper cross-examination, the court acknowledged the market value indicated in an accepted document (Ex.A-4) from the District Price Assessment Committee (DPAC). This document, which showed a market value higher than the awarded compensation but not as high as the respondent claimed, was admitted into evidence without significant contestation from either party. The High Court partially allowed the appeal: Compensation Settled: Rs. 15,00,000 per acre, aligning with the market value indicated in the uncontested document, rather than the Rs. 20,00,000 determined by the lower court. Outcome: The appeal was successful to the extent of reducing the compensation from the amount set by the lower court, but still awarded an amount higher than the initial compensation provided by the NHA. ----Citations/Precedents: Government of N.-W.F.P. and others v. Akbar Shah and others (2010 SCMR 1408) Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Misri Khan (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 749) Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and others (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 715) Mst. Fatima and 2 others v. Najeeb Ullah and another (2020 CLC 780) Lahore Ring Road Authority and others v. Mian Mumtaz Ahmad and others (2021 CLC 178) Muhammad Hussain and another v. Province of Punjab through District Officer Revenue, Multan and others (2021 YLR 2310)