CNERGYICO PK LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER-SUPERVISION DIVISION, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Ss

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

CNERGYICO PK LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER-SUPERVISION DIVISION, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Ss.33 & 34---Companies Act (XIX of 2017), S. 258---Order passed by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan ('Commission') or the Commissioner(s), assailing of---Jurisdiction---Scope---Appeal before the Appellate Bench of the Commission---Maintainability---Company filed appeal before the Appellate Bench of the Commission being aggrieved of the investigation order passed by the Commission in exercise of powers under S. 258 of the Companies Act, 2017---Submission of the Appellant was that the impugned order was an order passed by the signature of Respondent( Commissioner -Supervision Division ) for having been signed for and on behalf of the Commission, however, the same is identical to the situation where any action of one Commissioner or an authorized officer of the Commission is deemed to be an action of the Commission for all practical purposes; thus, as appeal against the order of one Commissioner lies before the Appellate Bench, hence, under S. 33 of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 ('the SECP Act, 1997'), the jurisdiction to hear the present Appeal lies with the Appellate Bench---Validity---Perusal of the provisions of Ss. 33 & 34 of the SECP Act, 1997, leave no doubt that an order of the Commission, passed by two or more Commissioners, is appealable before the High Court, whereas an appeal against an order of the Commission, except in matters provided therein, passed by one Commissioner or an officer authorized shall lie before the Appellate Bench---Jurisdiction of the Appellate Bench to entertain an appeal is unambiguously provided in S. 33 of the SECP Act, 1997, which in no manner should be confused with the jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 34 of the SECP Act, 1997 ---Jurisdictional error is always fatal to any legal proceedings and a coram non judice order has no sanctity in eyes of the law---Said provisions expressly provide the jurisdiction of forums to avail statutory remedy i.e. appeal, and thus leave no room for any misconception---impugned order before the Appellate Bench in the present Appeal was neither an order by one Commissioner, nor of an authorized officer; on the contrary, the impugned order was a collective decision of the Commission, presently comprising of four Commissioners, which was signed by one Commissioner, for and on behalf of the Commission, as decided vide the Commission's decision---Thus, it clearly showed that the Appellate Bench was devoid of jurisdiction to hear the present Appeal in terms of express provisions of S. 33 of the SECP Act, 1997---Thus, the Appellate Bench lacked jurisdiction to entertain the present Appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commission and in consequence thereof, the Appeal was to be returned for filing before the court of competent jurisdiction---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

CNERGYICO PK LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER-SUPERVISION DIVISION, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Ss — 2024 CLD 1532 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLD