Dr.P.N . SETH vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the application of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965, to Kaycee Industries Limited. The core legal questions involve determining whether the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965, could be applied to the company without first establishing the nature of the enemy interest therein, and whether such application remained valid following a prior High Court decision dated 5-7-1972. Additionally, the Court is tasked with examining the legal effect of the petitioner's continued possession of the disputed property after a 'sale resolution' was passed by the company, specifically in relation to Section 55-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Finally, the Court must decide whether the Government was empowered to recall a reference to arbitration while a stay order from a pending writ petition was in effect. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address these significant questions of law and procedure, requiring the petitioner to furnish security for costs.
- Can the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 be applied to a company without first determining the nature of the enemy interest in that company?
- What is the legal effect of continued possession of property after a sale resolution is passed, under Section 55-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
- Can the Government recall a reference to arbitration while a stay order from a writ petition is in effect?
- Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965
- Section 55-A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--After hearing Mr. Muhammad Arif, learned counsel for the petitioner we would grant leave to appeal to consider the following questions which have been raised in this petition:-
(a) Could the Defence of Pakistan Rules. 1965 be applied to the Kaycee Industries Limited without first deciding the nature of the interest of the energy in the Company and whether the application the said status could be continued despite the decision of the High Court dated 5-7-1972 in Dr P.N. Seth & Co. v. The Chairman, Enemy Property Management Board etc., W.P_ No. 770/1969?
(b) What is the effect of the continuance in possession of the petitioner in the disputed property after the passing of the "sale resolution" by the Kaycee Industries Ltd. Bombay, vis-a-vis the terms of section 55-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
2. (c)Whether the respondent-Government could recall the reference to arbitration, particularly at a point of the when the stay order passed in Writ Petition No.827 of 1976 held the field?
3. Security for costs will be furnished in the sum of Rs.1,000.