There was a problem sending you an sms. Check your phone number or try again later.
We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
That the plaintiffs are legally debarred to file this suit with reference to Sec-9 (2) (d) of the Trade Organization Ordinance, 1961.
That in view of the Trade Organization Ordinance, 1961, this Hon\u2019ble Court lacks the jurisdiction to try, even, to entertain the lis between the parties.
That the suit was being filed for a remedy upto limited period and the cut date mentioned in the plaint has already been passed, so the suit became infructuous and redundant.
That para No. 5 of the plaint is admitted as correct, however, the name of Khalid Maqbool is wrongly mentioned instead of Khalid Qayyum and two members namely Mqabool Ahmad and Ramesh Lal are missing to secure the names of ten members. The defendant No. 2 was elected by the ratio of 6:4.
That para No. 7 of the plaint is not admitted as correct, even the facts are not only wrongly mentioned, but concealed as well. It is pertinent to point out that an ad-hoc committee was constituted under the Trade Organization Ordinance, 1961 in the letter dated 12.3.02 issued by the Director of Trade Organization; and in the same letter it was ordered to elect a convener by the election of said ad-hoc committee. On the
direction of Director, T.O. an election was held and defendant No. 2 was elected as convener with the ratio of 6:4. In the said letter, it was obligatory that any member of ad-hoc committee, if interested to participate in the elections, managed and arranged by the ad-hoc committee shall submit his resignation on the announcement of election schedule. The plaintiffs being the members of ad-hoc committee were legally bound to submit their resignations to the secretary of P.C.G.A. on 3.7.2002, the date of announcement of election schedule. But, on 31.7.2002, abruptly the plaintiffs filed their nomination papers for the seats of member Central/Circle Executive in violation of letter dated 12.3.02. These nomination papers were duly objected by the scrutinizer namely Rao Sadar-ud- Din appointed under article 36 (c) of the Memorandum & Articles of Association of P.C.G.A. raised objections, on 1.8.02, however, to meet with the objections the plaintiffs then and there produced the original copies of their resignations having no previous record of submission of resignations as referred in the Director\u2019s letter on the date of announcement of election schedule, 3.7.02. However, the order dated 2.8.2002 for accepting the nomination papers of plaintiffs is not confirmatory with the election rules, directions and programme.
10. That para No. 10 of the plaint is correct upto the extent that there is no provision of appeal regarding the election matters in the Articles of Association of P.C.G.A. But, this fact is mentioned to misguide and mislead this Hon\u2019ble Court. Because, the ad-hoc committee has to frame election rules as well; and in these election rules circulated vide Circular No. 3, Karachi, dated 18.7.02 has proper provision for filing of appeal under rule 7 is provided. Whereas at the time of
Now bringing you back...
Does that email address look wrong? Try again with a different email.