PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

SIDDIQ MOTI (deceased) through Legal Heirs vs APPELLATE BENCH REGISTRY, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD Ss — 2025 CLD 34 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Citation
2025 CLD 34 ISLAMABAD
Court
Islamabad High Court
Year
2025
Reporter
CLD
Parties
SIDDIQ MOTI (deceased) through Legal Heirs vs APPELLATE BENCH REGISTRY, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 16---C; S. 4; S. 100---S; S. 100; S. 16; Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969); Central Depositories Act (XIX of 1997); Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908); Exchange Ordinance; Central Depositories Act

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

Judgment text as reported

SIDDIQ MOTI (deceased) through Legal Heirs VS APPELLATE BENCH REGISTRY, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD Ss. 33 & 34---Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S.16---Central Depositories Act (XIX of 1997), S.4(3)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100---Second appeal---Maintainability---Concurrent findings of facts by two forums below---Transfer of shares without authority---Extending credit to purchase any security---Central Depository System---Appellant / Stock Exchange broker was alleged to have illegally and without authority transferred shares of respondent / complainant as reflected in trading record maintained with Central Depository Company (C.D.C.)---Order passed by Director Securities Market Division of SECP (S.M.D.) was upheld by Appellate Bench of SECP---Validity---It was for appellant / broker to establish in terms of S. 100(1), C.P.C. that decision in question was contrary to law, or order assailed had failed to determine a material issue of law or suffered from substantial procedural defect affecting decision of the case in terms of Ss. 100(1) (a)(b) and (c), C.P.C., for High Court to interfere with concurrent factual findings rendered by SECP and Appellate Bench of SECP---Appellant / broker failed to make out case that factual findings as rendered by Director SMD and Appellate Bench SECP suffered from any such defects or infirmities---Provision of S. 16 of Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969 was applicable to the dispute and had barred, in terms of S. 16(a) of Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969 a member from extending credit to any person for purposes of purchasing any security---Provision of S.4(3) of Central Depositories Act, 1997 merely provided that a stock broker with written authorization of his client could enter securities beneficially owned by such client in his own account without establishing a sub-account in the name of such client---High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of two fora below which did not suffer from any infirmity---Second appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English