AIRLINK 194.38 Increased By ▲ 2.54 (1.32%)
BOP 10.08 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (2.13%)
CNERGY 7.67 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FCCL 38.55 Increased By ▲ 0.69 (1.82%)
FFL 15.77 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.06%)
FLYNG 25.71 Increased By ▲ 0.40 (1.58%)
HUBC 130.52 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (0.27%)
HUMNL 13.90 Increased By ▲ 0.31 (2.28%)
KEL 4.68 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.21%)
KOSM 6.23 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.32%)
MLCF 45.37 Increased By ▲ 1.08 (2.44%)
OGDC 210.00 Increased By ▲ 3.13 (1.51%)
PACE 6.70 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (2.13%)
PAEL 40.92 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (0.91%)
PIAHCLA 17.77 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (1.02%)
PIBTL 8.14 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.87%)
POWER 9.24 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PPL 181.75 Increased By ▲ 3.19 (1.79%)
PRL 39.40 Increased By ▲ 0.32 (0.82%)
PTC 24.50 Increased By ▲ 0.36 (1.49%)
SEARL 110.15 Increased By ▲ 2.30 (2.13%)
SILK 0.98 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (1.03%)
SSGC 38.99 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-0.31%)
SYM 19.44 Increased By ▲ 0.32 (1.67%)
TELE 8.60 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TPLP 12.44 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.57%)
TRG 65.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.31 (-0.47%)
WAVESAPP 12.60 Decreased By ▼ -0.18 (-1.41%)
WTL 1.69 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.59%)
YOUW 3.99 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (1.01%)
BR100 12,003 Increased By 72.4 (0.61%)
BR30 35,944 Increased By 284.6 (0.8%)
KSE100 114,183 Increased By 976.2 (0.86%)
KSE30 35,866 Increased By 300.3 (0.84%)

Books on interpretation of statutes are full of delicacies with reference to use of the words "may" and "shall". 'Shall' would normally denote a command, a direction or order to the 'functionary' to take the course directed, no option allowed. This may or may not be the case with the word "may", rules of the game go on.
Probably, in a zeal to beef-up its resources, SECP's draft of Company Law attempts to use the word 'shall' to inflict a penalty, in relation to a law provision the person should have been a compliant of. Even if the charge levelled turns out vagarious. It gives no option to SECP's own officers, an examiner, evaluator or adjudicator, in relation to the default alleged. The SECP officer is directed to cause a dishing out of money by the accused even when the omission or lacuna is ultimately found to have been due to genuine reasons. It may well have been caused by vagaries from the sky, due to circumstances beyond hands of the person charged or due to a hole in the law. As a matter of course, the Company Law draft provides "shall" to an SECP adjudicator, directing him to inflict a levy, a penalty on the doer or non-doer of an act, in disregard of the scenario before his doing or non-doing something, as also the related course of action available to the accused.
Probably the draftsmen of the law would do well to give the draft a fresh look on this count, winking at fall in the SECP revenue. On this count also the draft of the law needs to be gone over with a deep sense of fair play by person(s) proficient in lore and phraseology, having tight grip on the General Clauses Act. In the event of not so doing, day in and day out, SECP will be confronting lawyers in the superior courts seeking that the word "shall" in the relevant provision of the law, efficacious in their case, be expunged or not given effect to. Eventually SECP may be no gainer in momentary terms also. The word "may", in this context, is omnipotent, capable of deputizing "shall", when needed and directed by the competent authority, has to borne in mind.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2015

Comments

Comments are closed.