Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No.689 of 1976, decided on 29th May, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 6‑5‑1976 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.702 of 1976).

‑‑‑Art185(3)‑‑Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1985‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider (i) whether Defence of Pakistan Rules could be applied to ascertain company without first deciding nature of interest of "enemy" in such company; (ii) what was effect of continuance in possession of petitioner of disputed property after passing resolution of sale by company, and (iii) whether respondent‑Government could recall reference to arbitration when stay order issued by High Court could hold field.

Muhammad Arif, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 21st May, 1984.

‑‑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

(c)Whether the respondent‑Government could recall the reference to arbitration, particularly at a point of time when the stay order passed in Writ Petition No.827 of 1976 held the field

Security for costs will be furnished in the sum of Rs.1,000.

S.Q. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.