Securities And Exchange Commission Of Pakistan vs Nadeem H. Shaikh and others
This matter originated as an appeal against an order dated 21.1.2009 passed by the Islamabad High Court in Criminal Original No. 73 of 2008, which initiated proceedings under section 282-K of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, against two respondents while exonerating others. The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan challenged the exoneration of the majority of respondents. Following the grant of leave to appeal in 2010, the appellant consistently failed to provide the necessary addresses for the respondents despite repeated court directions and opportunities. By February 2020, the Court issued a final warning that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the appeal. Upon the hearing, the appellant's counsel failed to provide the required information, offering inconsistent explanations and requesting substitute service, which the Court rejected. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's persistent failure to comply with procedural directions warranted dismissal. The Court affirmed the principle that the law assists the vigilant and that judicial time and public expense must not be wasted by parties failing to pursue their cases with due diligence.
- Can an appeal be dismissed for non-compliance with court directions regarding the provision of respondent addresses?
- Does the law assist a party that fails to pursue its case with due diligence?
- Is a request for substitute service permissible when the appellant has failed to comply with prior court orders to provide respondent addresses?
- Section 282-K, Companies Ordinance 1984
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.