Mst. HALEEMA vs EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, C&C DEPARTMENT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Petition

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

Mst. HALEEMA VS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, C&C DEPARTMENT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Petition---Expression "disposed of accordingly"---Meaning---Said expression significantly means that the petition was disposed of in terms of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner---So, an order stating that counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw this petition after arguments…. "disposed of accordingly"… means that subject petition is terminated, settled, ended, concluded or closed as desired by the counsel for the petitioner after arguments and consideration of the merits of the case. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 324 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. HALEEMA VS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, C&C DEPARTMENT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN S. 265---Investigation of company's affairs---Appointing of Inspector---Scope---Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, powers of---While a Civil (Original) Suit, regarding dispute of company left by predecessor of parties ('Company'), was being adjudicated upon by the High Court, one of the parties filed a petition, with certain submission/prayer for the decision of the dispute between the parties ; High Court directed /ordered to transmit the matter to the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (' Commission') for decision of the same---Commission while exercising the power under S.265 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 ('the Ordinance, 1984'), appointed a Chartered Accountant as Inspector for carrying out investigation into the affairs of the Company ('impugned order')---A few share-holders of Company (petitioner) filed constitutional petition assailing the vires of impugned order passed by the Commission/respondent---Grievance of the petitioners was that the impugned order was violative of the direction given by the High Court as no direction was given to pass any order in terms of S. 265 of the Ordinance, 1984---Validity---Provisions under S. 265 (a) of the Ordinance, 1984 stipulate that the Commission, under S. 265 (a) of the Ordinance, 1984 , could appoint Inspector subject to fulfillment of pre-conditions mentioned therein---Commission has only to satisfy itself, prima facie, on the basis of the material placed before it, that case for investigation through an Inspector is called for---The matter, in fact, vests in the discretion of the Commission, to be decided after following the summary procedure---In proceedings under S. 265 of the Ordinance, 1984, full-fledged inquiry in the form of a trial is not required to be held nor any formal evidence is to be recorded before passing the order under S. 265 of the Ordinance, 1984---The Authority has to only satisfy itself prima facie, of course, on the basis of the material placed before it that a case for investigation through an Inspector is called for and it is for the Inspector to ascertain and determine the truth or otherwise of the allegation during the investigation to be conducted by him whereafter he has to submit report to the concerned authority---In the present case, the Commission (Respondent), before passing the impugned order, issued Show-Cause Notices to the Chief Executive and Directors of the Company, and after going through the facts of the case, evidences produced as well as arguments advanced by the parties, and while observing that the affairs of the Company warranted deeper probe through appointment of a competent Inspector(s), appointed a Chartered Accountants as Inspector for carrying out investigation into the affairs of the Company as per annexed Terms Of Reference (TORs)---Therefore , respondent /SECP had rightly passed the impugned order by appointing the Chartered Accountant as an Inspector in terms of S. 265 of the Ordinance, 1984---No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect on the part of respondent (Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan) had been noticed while passing the impugned order---Constitutional petition, being merit-less, was dismissed , in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 324 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. HALEEMA VS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, C&C DEPARTMENT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Ss. 265(a) & 265(b)---Investigation of Company's affairs---Appointing of Inspector---Scope---Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan---Powers and discretion---Scope---Provisions under S.265(a) of the Ordinance, 1984 stipulates that the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan ('Commission'), under S. 265(a) of the Ordinance, 1984, can appoint Inspector subject to fulfillment of pre-conditions mentioned therein but such pre-conditions are not applicable to its suo motu powers, under S. 265 (b) of the Ordinance 1984, to appoint an Inspector---Commission has only to satisfy itself, prima facie, on the basis of the material placed before it, that case for investigation through an Inspector is called for---The matter, in fact, vests in the discretion of the Commission, to be decided after following the summary procedure---In proceedings under S. 265 of the Ordinance 1984, full-fledged inquiry in the form of a trial is not required to be held nor any formal evidence is to be recorded before passing the order under S. 265 of the Ordinance, 1984---Authority has to only satisfy itself prima facie, of course, on the basis of the material placed before it that a case for investigation through an Inspector is called for and it is for the Inspector to ascertain and determine the truth or otherwise of the allegation during the investigation to be conducted by him whereafter he has to submit report to the concerned Authority. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 324 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. HALEEMA VS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, C&C DEPARTMENT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN S. 265---Investigation of Company's affairs---Appointing of Inspector---Scope---Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, powers of---While a Civil (Original) Suit, regarding dispute of company left by predecessor of parties ('Company'), was being adjudicated upon by the High Court, one of the parties filed a petition ,with certain submission/prayer for the decision of the dispute between the parties ; High Court directed/ordered to transmit the matter to the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan ('Commission') for decision of the same---Commission while exercising the power under S.265 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 ('the Ordinance 1984'), appointed a Chartered Accountant as Inspector for carrying out investigation into the affairs of the Company ('impugned order')---A few share-holders of Company (Petitioners) filed constitutional petition assailing the vires of impugned order passed by the Commission / Respondent---Grievance of the petitioners was that the impugned order was violative of the direction given by the High Court as no direction was given to pass any order in terms of S.265 of the Ordinance, 1984---Validity---Record reflected that said constitutional petition was disposed of by the High Court on very submission of said private respondent/share-holder (then petitioner ) that he would be satisfied if the matter be referred to the SECP to investigate the allegations levelled by him in terms of S. 265 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and thereafter decide the case in accordance with law---Thus, then High Court directed the SECP to decide the same in accordance with law i.e. in terms of S. 265 of the Ordinance, 1984---No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect on the part of respondent (Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan was noticed while passing the impugned order---Constitutional petition, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mst. HALEEMA vs EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, C&C DEPARTMENT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Petition — 2025 CLD 324 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD