' ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.--We propose to dispose of the above two petitions by this common judgment as the same involve common questions of law. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that the petitioners are a statutory Corporation, constituted under Life Insurance (Nationalisation) Order 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Order No,10 of 1972). Under the provisions of the said order the petitioners took over the control and management of as many as 41 companies doing the business of Life Insurance and the assets and liabilities of the said companies vested in the petitioners. These liabilities and assets also included the commission earned by the Agents and Employer of Agents of the said Companies (hereinafter referred to as the Field Workers) and the Insurance Policies. That most of the said taken over Companies maintained their Registered Principal Offices at Karachi having extensive net-work of their business in West Pakistan as well as in the erstwhile Province of East Pakistan for which they also maintained their offices at Dhaka which were linked with the registered principal offices at Karachi. That after the fall of East Pakistan in December, 1.971 and creation of the State of Bangladesh, a number of East Pakistanis living in West Pakistan opted to migrate to Bangladesh and also those living in East Pakistan lost the citizenship of Pakistan. Consequently an Act, namely, Abandoned .Properties (Taking Over and Management) Act; 1975, (hereinafter referfed to as the Act) was promulgated.
2. The case of the petitioners in C.P. No,D-15/1981 is that the respondent 3 in consequence of the provisions of the Act issued notices to them on 13th & 30th April, 1977, requiring them to submit the following particulars:- "(1) Names of nationalised Insurance Companies of former East and West Pakistan.
(2) List of employees being its field staff of such companies who ceased to be Pakistani citizens on or after 16-12-1971.
(3) Amounts due to each such employees who were being paid regular percentage share out of premium received from different categories of policy-holders insured by such field staff.
(4) Any other amount like provident fund, company contribution, commission, etc. Payable to them.
(5) Said information be supplied separately for each nationalised. Insurance Company with the list of its said employees and amounts due to them."
The petitioners furnished the said particulars under two affidavits of 11-8-1977 and 10-9-1977 as under:- {{TABLE}} Sr. Name of the Insurance Company Total Amount due No, to E.P. Field Workers.
1989 S.L.I. Corpn. Of Pak. v. Board of Trustees (Abdul Rehire' Kazi, J) Karachi 607 Habib Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs, 1,579.56 New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs, 766.79 National Security Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs, 13,313.70 Oriental Mutual Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs, 4,894.54 Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs, 17,953.27 Cooperative Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs, 9,702.12 International General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs, 31,109.57 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs, 10,510.03 Under Second Affidavit.
1. Adamjee Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs, 34,737.25 Total:- Rs,2,00,478.83 ' It is further contended by the petitioners that the respondent 3 by two separate orders held the above amounts pertaining to the East Pakistan Field Workers as "Abandoned Property" being the amounts payable to "Specified Persons" and allowed 15 days' time for payment of the said amount in the account of respondent.
2. The petitioners filed review applications before respondent 2 under section 14 of the Act, which were rejected. They then filed appeals before the respondent 1 which were also dismissed.
Therefore, the present petition is filed:
3. The case of petitioners in C.P. No, D-735/1981 is that by a general order published in newspapers, it transpired that petitioners were required to convey to the respondents list of Life Insurance Policies appertaining to the erstwhile Province of East Pakistan which information was almost impossible to compile, whereupon a show-cause notice was given to them by the Deputy Director (Judicial) on 13-12-1975. In reply to the above show-cause notice, the representative of the petitioners appeared and explained the above position. It was' also contended that no abandoned property had vested in the petitioners on 1-11-1972 but the above stand of petitioners was rejected by the respondent 3, who ordered the petitioners to furnish information in respect of all persona who took out life insurance policies in the erstwhile province of East Pakistan alongwith their surrender value. Petitioners then filed a review application before the respondent 3, which was rejected. Appeal filed before respondent 2, was also dismissed and, therefore, the present petition is filed.
4. We have heard Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, who has submitted that the said taken-over companies factually had separate offices at Karachi and Dhaka and, therefore, the liabilities are also separate and the registered principal offices at Karachi cannot be burdened with the liabilities pertaining to the insurance policies and the commission of the field workers of East Pakistan. He has further contended that the said liabilities are created on the East Pakistan Branches of the taken-over companies, the assets of which branches would vest in Custodian there. His contention further is that the said amounts, therefore, are payable from the Dhaka Branches. In this behalf, he has placed reliance on the case of Arab Bank Ltd. v. Barclays Bank (Dominion, Colonial and Overseas) (AER 1954 (2) 226). It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that neither the said field workers nor the insured of East Pakistan in the present cases ,can be termed as "Specified Persons". It is also his contention that the said amounts of commission and policies of insurance do not form "Abandoned Property" for the reasons that the same did not vest in the petitioners on the specified date of 16-12-1971. It will be advantageous to note here that the definition of specified person as given in the Act was subsequently amended vide Act No,XLV of 1976. The relevant provisions of the said Act are reproduced hereunder:- "2(a).-- 'Abandoned property' means any property, movable or immovable (including share in industrial units and firms, investments, deposits, policies of insurance and all other interests and rights in or to or arising out of any such property), belonging to a specified person and includes any such property sold or transferred to or placed under the supervision or control of, any other person on or after the sixteenth day of December, 1971, but .Does not include any ornaments or wearing apparel or any cooking vessel or other household 'effects in the immediate possession of a specified person, not exceeding a total of rupees one thousand."
"2(f).-- 'Specified person' means a person who, at any time before the sixteenth day of December 1971, was a citizen of Pakistan domiciled in the territories which before the said day constituted the Province of East Pakistan and who, on or after that day, has ceased or ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan, and includes a company registered in the said territories the registered office of which has not been shifted in pursuance of the Companies (Shifting of Registered Office) Ordinance 1972 (V of 1972)."
"3. VESTING OF ABANDONED PROPERTY IN GOVERNMENT.-- All abandoned property shall vest and shall be deemed always to have vested in the. Federal Government on and from the sixteenth day of December, 1971."
5. From the above provisions it will appear that the definition of abandoned property does include the policy of insurance and all other interests and rights in or to or arising out of any such property belonging to a specified person and the specified person is one who was at any time before 16th December, 1971, a citizen of Pakistan which before 16th December, 1971 constituted the Province of East Pakistan and, who, on or after that day, has ceased or ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan. From the above, there can be no two opinions with regard to the fact that the said policies of insurance and the commission of the field workers are abandoned property belonging to the specified persons which vest in the Federal Government under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The orders of the respondents also show that petitioner's own representative Mr. A.E. Ismail, Assistant General Manager, has given the said information on oath by way of the affidavits.
6. Mr. Hisamuddin, learned counsel for the respondents, repelling the above said contention, has submitted that the said Insurance Company had their registered principal offices at Karachi and that all business dealings were controlled by the said principal offices and the accounts were also maintained by and at principal offices at Karachi. He has further submitted that the said taken over companies for the purposes of income tax have claimed the loss of assets appertaining to their East Pakistan Branches and now they cannot take any stand otherwise. As far as the above cited case of Arab Bank Ltd. v. Barclays Bank (Dominion Colonial and Overseas (AER 1954 (2) 226) is concerned, Mr. Hisamuddin has contended that the said case pertained to the payment from out of the individual account and was not a case similar to the present one. He has also placed reliance on the definition of specified persons and abandoned property as given in the Act.
7. Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan has then placed reliance on the cases of Muhammad Rafiullah v. The Board of Trustees for Abandoned Properties and another (1987 MLD 558) and Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company and others v. Board of Trustees of Abandoned Property and others (1987 CLC 1962). In our view, the above two cases would not be applicable as the facts in those cases are different than the present one. The learned counsel for the petitioner then pressed the doctrine of frustration of contract and has taken plea that in the present case fulfilment of contract has become impossible as the war had broken out. He has placed reliance on two cases in this behalf, namely, (1) Messrs Mansukhdas Bodaram v. Hussain Brothers Ltd. (PLD 1980 SC 122) and (2)
Government of the Punjab v. Dr. Ijaz Hasan Qureshi ( PLD 1985 SC 28). In our view, the above cited two cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will not be of any help to the petitioners, as in the present case the character and nature of the person and the property is determined under a law promulgated on account of the out-come of the War. It is a statutory liability and not the fulfilment of a private individual contract. Hence the said doctrine will not be applicable to the present cases.
8. Lastly, Mr. Anwar Mansoor has drawn our attention to the contents of para 10 of the memorandum of petition No,D-735/1981, wherein it is contended that by an agreement of 16-12- 1973 entered into by the petitioners, with the permission and sanction of the Federal Government, with American Life Insurance Company, whereby, the said Company declared itself to be liable/responsible for and in respect of assets and properties as also liabilities relating to Life Insurance business in Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) and not in any vise or manner pertaining to or connected with the operation of the said company in the erstwhile province of East Pakistan. The copy of the agreement is also produced and the learned counsel has also shown us a copy of the Gazette of Government of Pakistan of 20-5-1976 to this effect. From this the learned counsel has submitted that the demand of Rs,1,10,645.25 pertaining to the said American Life Insurance Company will have to be excluded. Mr. Hisamuddin the learned counsel for the respondents, has not controverted this fact.
9. From the above discussion, we are of the view that the petitioners are liable for the amounts as demanded by the respondents as reflected in C.P. No,0-15/1981 except for the above said amount of American Life Insurance Company Ltd., and the impugned orders passed by the respondent No,1 on 29-4-1980 are lawful to that extent. We also hold that the orders passed by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 in C.P. No,D-735/1981 are quite lawful and the petitioners are lawfully required to submit the information except for the insurance policieg pertaining to A.L.I. Co. Required therein and would be liable for the consequences.
10. In view of the above observation and to the extent of above said modification, the present petitions are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.