1056 CORPORATE LAW DECISIONS Wol. X53 ‘Financial In: it is established that the respondent has contravened the! Ordinance (XI provisions of the Code of Conduct. 15, The violation of the Rules and Regulations is a serious}; matter which can even lead to suspension or cancellation of the respondent's registration as a broker by the Commission. However, keeping in view the fact that this type of non: compliance on part of the respondent has been observed for| first time, I am taking a lenient view in the matter and |] hereby impose on the respondent a penalty of Rs. 50,000|'3 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). Additionally, I strongly advise| the respondent to take immediate measures and put in place| proper checks in its Order Management System to restrict] ig, Commis: such orders, which may amount, to wash trades before these thers PLD 200 are routed to the trading system-of the Exchange ‘for i Khalid \ execution to eliminate the occurrence of such instances in|. future. I also direct the respondent to ensure that full Date of compliance be made of all rules, regulations and directives of| the Commission in the future for avoiding any serious|” punitive action under the law. : ‘These 2 16, The matter is disposed of in the above manner and the|.. respondent is directed to deposit the fine in the account of|-" the Commission being maintained in the designated branches of MCB Bank Limited not later than thirty (30) days| from the date of this Order and furnish the copy of the| deposit challan to the undersigned. 17. The order is issued without prejudice to any other] action that the Commission may initiate against - the respondent in accordance with law on matters subsequently] | give cost of f statutory Tig Institutions | means of the including Ist modifying the and granting investigated or otherwise brought to the knowledge of the| | mm | with law. Hoy Commission. i today. the H.B.T./19/SEC Order accordingly. | iim, Imitation ax “there was a) 2011 CLD 1056 ich woe djourned t [Kagachi] ” matter of lir Before Munib Akhtar an€Muhammad Athar Saeed, JJ f We HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. Nor the app through Manager Law---Appellant versus VTH BANKING COURT AT KARACHI and another---Respondents I Ist Appeals Nos. 80 to 91 of 2010, decided on 29th November, 2010, cp appeals. im atters mé ng with applicatior |the Hon’b! peing Couavened thé Is a serious cellation off; omission} pe of non-|! >served for| ttter_and J 2s. 50,000} 8 agly advise| ut in place}! to restrict ‘fore these|! hange for| stances in| that full rectives off y serious| 2r and the| ccount off = esignated| (30) days oy of the| wny other| inst - the ‘equently 3e of the| (Vol. X E tox 1] House Building Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Vth 1057 i es | Banking Court at Karachi ‘Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) ‘Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) . L.§s. 7 & 22-- Appeal-- Limitation-- Condonation of felay--Connected appeals which were being disposed of and reasons given for seeking condonation of delay in time-barred appeals were cogent, delay Gould be condoned in case of time-barred appeals, and all appeals disposed of in terms of the orders inade in respect of the appeals which were within time. Sfp. 1058] A ; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Media Network and others PLD 2006 SC 787 fol. Khalid Mahmood Siddiqui for Appellant. LE Date of hearing: 29th November, 2010. ORDER ‘These appeiils, were fixed along with other connected appeals and the only grievance raised by the appellant in all these matters was that the learned trial Court had failed to give cost of funds in accordance with law which was the statutory right of, the appellant under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. By means of the order dated 25-8-2010 some of those appeals including Ist Appeal No.74 of 2010 were disposed of by modifying the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and granting the cost of funds to the appellant in accordance with law. However, in respect of the appeals before the Court :ordingly. vember, today, learned counsel for the appellant had himself pointed out that the said appeals had been filed beyond the period of limitation and were time-barred by about one week and that there was an application seeking condonation of such delay which was mending adjudication. We had therefore, adjourned the hearing of these appeals to consider first the matter of limitation. We would first like to commend the learned counsel for the appellant for having himself pointed out that these appeals involved issue of limitation, since otherwise the matters may have been disposed of in the ordinary course along with the other appeals. We have considered the ‘application seeking condonation of delay and the decision of ‘the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by learned counsel ‘being Commissioner of Income Tax v. Media Network and1058 CORPORATE LAW DECISIONS [Vol. X others PLD 2006 SC 787. In the reported decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at page 814 that since | connected appeals which were within time were being disposed of and since the reasons given for seeking condonation of delay in the time barred appeals were cogent the delay was condoned and all appeals were disposed of in terms of the orders made in respect of the appeals which| were within time. We have also seen the application seeking! ; condonation of delay and have come to the conclusion that}4i the reasons stated therein are reasonable and therefore, respectfully following the dictum of the. Hon'ble Supreme|‘# Court we condone the delay in these matters and accordingly] | modify the decision of the learned trial Court in terms of our earlier order dated 2-8-2010 namely that the appellant is entitled to cost of funds in accordance with Jaw. The appeals along with listed application stand disposed of in the above terms. M.A.K./H-1/K Order accordingly. ; 2011 CLD 1058 [Lahore] Before Kh. Imtiaz Ahmad, J MERAJ AGRO, CHEMICAL (PVT.) LIMITED, MULTAN through Chief Executive---Petitioner versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE---Respondent Civil Revision No.471 of 2008, decided on 18th February, ' 2011. (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- 0. XXXVI, Rr. 2 & 3--Suit for recovery of amount on} basis of dis-honored cheque-—-Leave to defend suit, application for--Defendant's plea that son-in-law of} plaintiff was Accountant ‘of defendant, who while|] leaving job without intimation took away books of|i accounts and cheque books belonging to defendant; that |} before filing suit by plaintiff, defendant had registered || criminal case against plaintiff and his son:in-law--Trial Court accepted leave application subject to furnishing of 2011) M Bank guc Validity—- which sh defence---. submissic directed t other pe immovabl High Cou - defendan time. [pp. Agk Rahim Yar 199% AC Industries Manageme SC 976; M 2011 CLC 2000 CLC Abc others 19¢ () Civil. ~-O. XXX basis of i Impositio. leave---Sc * court, suc Abc others 19¢ Saf Miz Dat KH directed a learned Ac the petitic C.P.C. in guarantee