ATIF AHMED vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN ("SECP") Technicalities

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ATIF AHMED VS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN ("SECP") Technicalities---Scope---Prescriptions of statute are not mere technicalities and disregard thereof would render entire process into miscarriage of justice. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1074 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ATIF AHMED VS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN ("SECP") Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962), S.14(5)(a)---Corporate Governance Regulatory Framework and Regulations 8 & 9 of Prudential Regulations for Corporate/ Commercial Banking/DFI, Cl. G-5(2) (3)(4)---Suit for declaration, injunction and recovery of damages---Interim injunction, refusal of---Shares of bank, acquiring of---Principle---Plaintiffs were aggrieved of public announcement regarding eligibility to acquire 51% shares of bank in question---Validity---Section 14(5)(a) of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, clause G-5(2)(3)(4) of Corporate Governance Regulatory Framework and Regulations 8 & 9 of Prudential Regulations For Corporate/ Commercial Banking/DFI mandated that a person eager to acquire share of any company/bank had to undergo fit and proper test in advance before acquiring the same---Prior approval of State Bank of Pakistan was required for any change in existing sponsor shareholdings---Bank in question had to ensure to give prior intimation to State Bank of Pakistan before dealing with any investor and was to seek State Bank of Pakistan's approval for allowing due diligence---Plaintiffs failed to make out prima facie case and in fact balance of convenience was in favour of defendants---No question of sustaining any irreparable injury was ascended to plaintiffs---High Court declined to grant interim injunction in favour of plaintiffs---Application was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1074 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ATIF AHMED VS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN ("SECP") O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Interim injunction, grant of---Principles---Relief of injunction is discretionary and is to be granted by any court according to sound legal principles and ex debito justitiae---Existence of prima facie case is to be judged or made out on the basis of material/evidence on record at the time of hearing of injunction application and such evidence of material should be of the nature that by considering the same, court should or ought to be of the view that plaintiff applying for injunction was in all probability likely to succeed in the suit by having a decision in his favour---Term "prima facie case" is not specifically defined in Civil Procedure Code, 1908 but consensus is that in order to satisfy about existence of prima facie case, pleadings must contain facts constituting existence of right of plaintiff and its infringement at the hands of opposite party---Balance of convenience is that if an injunction is not granted and suit is ultimately decided in favour of plaintiff, inconvenience caused to plaintiff would be greater than that would be caused to defendant, if the injunction is granted---Plaintiff was to show that inconvenience caused to him would be greater than that which may be caused to defendant---Irreparable loss is meant to be the loss, which is incapable of being calculated on the yardstick of money---Injunction is equitable remedy and accordingly is to conform to maxim of law of equity that "he who seeks equity must do equity".

ATIF AHMED vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN ("SECP") Technicalities — 2023 YLR 1074 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR