Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Constitutional Petition No. D‑604 of 1979, decided on 31st March, 1986
Control and Development (Repeal) Ordinance (XXXI of 1977), Ss.3(6) a 6‑‑Handing over of factory‑‑Liability against owner‑‑Dispute regarding assets and liabilities of factory‑‑Petitioner owner not availing remedy of going before Federal Government for the determination of the same before approaching Court‑‑No time limit was prescribed‑‑Petition dismissed in circumstances.
Ali Athar for Petitioner.
I. H. Zaidi for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 31st March, 1986.
The petitioner is a Cotton Ginning Factory which was taken over by the Federal Government under the provisions of Ordinance XXXI of 1976. However, the policy of the Government was changed later on and Ordinance XXVI of 1977 was promulgated under the provisions of which the factory was handed over to the petitioner on 3‑10‑1977. At that time a bank guarantee from the petitioner had been obtained that they shall have to pay fifty ' thousand rupees for the liabilities found existing against them.
2. The respondent No.l which had handed over the factory and had been running the said factory before its handing over to the petitioners, claimed later on that the petitioners were liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,90,730, and they enforced the bank guarantee against the petitioners.
3. The liabilities were arrived at by the respondent No.l in accordance with the provisions of section 6 of Ordinance XXXI of 1977 which allowed them to determine the net worth value as compared to the present value of the assets and liabilities.
4. Main contention of Mr. Ali Athar, learned counsel of the petitioner, is that before determining any liabilities against the petitioners the respondent No.l should have heard the petitioner and since they had not done so, therefore, the order is vitiated.
5. Mr. I.H. Zaidi, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner had not availed the remedy which was provided to him under subsection (6) of section 3 of the same Ordinance which provides that in case of any dispute between the previous management of an establishment and the corporation regarding the assets or liabilities of the establishment the matter shall be referred to the Federal Government whose decision shall be final.
6. We have no doubt in our mind that the liabilities against the petitioner could not be determined without affording an opportunity to them to show cause against the same but we are also of the view that since the question of liabilities is matter of going into detailed accounts, A therefore, the petitioner had an adequate remedy in subsection (6) of section 3 of Ordinance XXXI of 1977 and the petitioner should have availed of that remedy of going before the Federal Government. The petitioner could have thereafter, approached this Court if it still had any grievance left.
7. We find from the provisions of subsection (6) of section 3 that there is no time limit prescribed for referring the dispute in respect of the assets and liabilities to the Federal Government and therefore, the petitioner can easily approach the Federal Government for affording a proper relief to the petitioner.
8. In this view of the matter this petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.
9. We may note here that a similar decision has been taken by another Bench of this Court in Constitutional Petition No. D‑446 of 1977 decided on 4th February, 1986.
M. Y.H./5159/K. ‑‑‑‑‑ Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer