Pakistan Case Law← Search
2021 CLD 381, 2021 SCMR 343

Securities And Exchange Commission Of Pakistan vs Nadeem H. Shaikh and others

Citation2021 CLD 381, 2021 SCMR 343
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Appeal No 518 of 2010
Date2020-10-27
Judge(s)Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Mazhar Alam Khan
ResultAppeal dismissed

ORDER

1. QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---Impugned herein is order dated 21.1.2009, passed in Criminal Original No.73 of 2008 titled as Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan v. Nadeem H. Sheikh and 32 others by the then Islamabad High Court to draw up proceedings against two from amongst a large array of the respondents under section 282-K of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Exoneration of majority of the respondents was assailed through leave of the Court granted vide order passed as far back as on 14.12.2010. It is in this backdrop that despite repeated directions and opportunities generously granted by the Court from time to time, the appellant persisted in its failure to provide the addresses of the respondents so as to bring the issue, in the fullness of time, to its logical end, sooner rather than later; last order being on 25.02.2020 that runs as follows: "lbrar Saeed, Law Officer appearing on behalf of the appellant requests for four weeks' time. Time as requested is granted, but with a caution that in case the appellant still fails to comply , the appeal shall stand dismissed. The notice stands discharged."

2. There is no improvement in the state of affairs even today; the learned counsel for the appellant, when confronted with the non-compliance, stated that he had furnished requisite information to the Advocate-on-Record, however , the latter when summoned, took a different plea, diametrically inconsistent with the position taken by the former and instead persuaded the Court for substitute service, a request that cannot be acceded to without disregard to the order earlier passed by this Court.

3. Law assists the vigilant even in causes most valid and justiciable. Similarly , fixation of cases before Benches entails public expense and time that must not be incurred more than once in the absence of a reason most genuine and compelling. Delay caused by the appellant in doing the needful is exasperating. We do not feel persuaded B to allow this long drawn inaptitude to further encumber pendency of the Court. Dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search