Summary: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Appellate Bench Procedure) Rules, 2003--- ----R. 13(4)---Contumacious conduct of the party before the Court/Authority---Special costs, imposition of---Scope---Appellant, a wholly-owned government company, availed multiple opportunities, before the Appellate Bench, of hearing with its persistent and repeated requests for adjournment---Validity---Appellant's conduct reflects a clear intention to delay the proceedings and obstruct the disposal of the Appeal---Appellant's actions demonstrate a lack of diligence and seriousness in pursuing the matter, thereby undermining the sanctity of the appellate process---Pattern of seeking adjournments at the eleventh hour specifically, on the day preceding scheduled hearings even after receiving explicit instructions to ensure representation, amounts to a deliberate and calculated abuse of the legal process---Thus, appellant's conduct constitutes procedural impropriety and is not in consonance with the standards expected of a public sector entity---Imposition of special costs under R.13(4) of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Appellate Bench Procedure) Rules, 2003 (‘the Rules 2003’) would have been warranted under the circumstances, however, the Bench exercising judicial restraint refrained from doing so---Nevertheless, the Bench strongly emphasized that, as a wholly-owned government company, the appellant was duty-bound to uphold exemplary standards of corporate governance and to ensure strict compliance with the PSC Rules--- The Bench also noted with regret that the appellant had shown no bona fide intent to pursue the appeal, which was evidenced by the appellant's continued non-appearance and failure to ensure representation even on the final date of hearing---It was further observed that the individual cited as being unavailable on account of attending a meeting with a Minister was neither an authorized representative in the instant appeal nor a legal counsel for the appellant; which fact, in itself, highlighted the appellant's disregard for procedural due process and further reinforced the conclusion that the appellant had willfully and deliberately avoided participating in the appellate proceedings---Hence, the Appellate Bench viewed that, due to the appellant's persistent failure to appear and pursue the appeal despite multiple opportunities being granted, the appeal was liable to be dismissed---Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, in circumstances. Nemo. for Appellant. Hammad Javed, Additional Director/HOD, Adjudication-II SECP for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th March, 2025.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.9 & O.VII, R.10---Cantonments Act (II of 1924), S.108---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Courts below returning the plaint---Administrative notice for removal of encroachment, challenge to---Suit for injunction and possession---Maintainability---Jurisdiction of Civil Court---Scope---Brief facts were that the petitioners instituted a civil suit seeking permanent injunction and possession in respect of immovable property after a notice for removal of alleged encroachment was issued by the Cantonment Executive Officer under S.108 of the Cantonments Act, 1924; during the pendency of the suit, the Trial Court, instead of deciding the application for temporary injunction, returned the plaint under O.VII, R.10, C.P.C. for presentation before the proper forum, which order was upheld by the District Court in revision, whereupon the petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court through the present writ petition---Held: Notice issued under S.108 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 being administrative in nature and having the effect of affecting the civil rights of the petitioners raised issues that were of a civil nature---These include questions relating to title, possession, lawful occupation, and alleged encroachment, which fell well within the scope of civil adjudication---Moreover, there was no express bar under the Cantonments Act, 1924, that ousted the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters where executive actions were challenged on the grounds of illegality, arbitrariness, malice, or want of jurisdiction---Courts below erred in law by returning the suit filed by the petitioners which was maintainable---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Mardan Ways SNG Station v. General Manager SNGPL and others 2022 SCMR 584 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.9---Alternate remedy in a statute, availability of---Effect upon jurisdiction of Civil Court---Where impugned action is without lawful authority---Scope---Even where an alternative remedy may be available under the statute (such as appeal or revision before a higher cantonment authority), the civil court's jurisdiction is not barred where the action impugned is alleged to be without lawful authority or in violation of fundamental rights or natural justice. Nemo for Petitioners. Haji Muhammad Yousaf for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th April, 2025.

Summary: Award of compensation awarded to the landowners as per nature and kind of acquired land.

Summary: Scope of doctrine of cause of action estoppel

Summary: Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973? Article 169 validation of law made between 20.12.1971 to 20.04.1972? Nationalization Order 1972, Article 3 overriding effect ? Article 5 to 7 appointment of trustees? and possession of assets of the insurer (Article 6) and the transfer of assets? Bar of jurisdiction of High Court Article 47 of the Ordinance 1972? Application under Section 12 (2) CPC on the ground that impugned Order obtained through concealment of material facts as well as by non-impleading necessary parties held that said order is void and nullity in the eyes of law and same is passed in contravention of Article 10-A of Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973... application under Section 12 (2) CPC allowed, impugned order set aside. Main Writ Petition dismissed due to want of jurisdiction of this Court.

Summary: If the accused refused production of any document to be used against him, prosecution can tender secondary evidence of such document.

Summary: Dropping/cancellation of case by Anti Corruption Establishment stands on different premise to one contemplated in Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules, 1934.

Summary: Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 would not be hindrance in the way of maintainability of a constitutional petition being not an adequate alternate remedy as the scope of review is limited only to the extent of clerical mistake, new facts and its re-examination.

Summary: Held that the discretion exercised by the Administrative Department in soliciting only one candidate despite the admitted existence of two resultant vacancies was arbitrary and unjustified. No lawful explanation was offered as to why the Administrative Department failed to seek recommendation for the petitioner earlier, particularly when the vacancy had clearly arisen during the validity of the waiting list. This inaction not only frustrated the petitioner's legitimate expectation but also defeated the very purpose of maintaining a waiting list. Further held that repeated instances of similar administrative lapses necessitate institutional correction. The Government of Punjab, in active consultation with the Punjab Public Service Commission, shall evolve a clear, transparent, and time-bound mechanism to ensure that all resultant vacancies arising during the currency of a waiting list?whether due to resignation, non-joining, or otherwise?are immediately notified, assessed, and filled from the waiting list, where applicable.

Summary: Article 4, Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. if opportunity to be heard is to have any value in practice, the decision maker must assign or identify the reasons for any adverse decision. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless.