SC highlights defects in Sindh Co-operative Societies Act
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court highlighted defects in Sindh Co-operative Societies Act, 2020, and called for correction/ amendment by the Sindh provincial legislatures for appropriate rectification.
The Sindh Co-operative Societies Act, 2020, which by virtue of Section 119 of the Act, repealed the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to cooperative societies in the Province of Sindh to facilitate the formation and working of co-operative societies for the promotion of thrift, self-help, and mutual aid among agriculturists and other persons with common economic needs, so as to bring about better living, better business, and better methods of production.
The judgment of two-judge bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, which heard civil petition against the Sindh High Court (SHC) regarding immovable property dispute, noted that instead of providing right of appeal to the High Court in the Act, which is a substantive right, it is provided in the Rules.
Furthermore, the nature/ categories of disputes required to be resolved or decided by the Special Court for Cooperatives are also provided in the Rules rather than being defined in the Act with a specific provision to deal with civil disputes, just as offences are properly described in the Act itself without any ambiguity.
It stated; Some corrections in the nomenclature of the Act are also required in Section 104 of the Act, which articulates: '(1) No Court other than the Special Court for Cooperative Societies established under section 121 shall try offences under this Chapter and disputes referred to in section 78'.
The judgment further noted; 'The Act ends at Section 119 and there is no Section 121 in the Act. While Section 78 is germane to transfer of property which cannot be sold, and the execution of an order sought to be executed under Sections 81 and 82.'
The judgment said perhaps due to misprinting or inadvertence, instead of Sections 73 and 117, the wrong taxonomies of sections of the Act are printed, which is causing confusion and is open to correction/ amendment by the provincial legislatures/ government of Sindh for appropriate rectification.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
15 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Sales Tax Act: Proposed Section 37AA irks businessmen at large
LAHORE: Proposed insertion of a new Section 37AA in the Sales Tax Act has irked businessmen at large, authorizing an Inland Revenue Officers (IROs) to arrest without warrant based on mere suspicion of tax fraud – a power that invites abuse and harassment. They said the provision creates a surveillance state where businesses operate under the constant threat of arbitrary action. This is not tax policy but a systematic harassment institutionalized by law, they added. As per the provision, an IRO can arrest a person involved in a tax fraud or any offence under the Act with prior approval from the commissioner. If delay may let the person escape or it is impractical to get approval, the officer may arrest without it – but he must immediately inform the commissioner with all relevant facts and grounds for arrest. It may be noted that the Sales Tax Act had empowered the IRO to raid a business place and confiscate books of account, computers and business record in case of tax fraud. But the present one provision has proposed arrest of taxpayer to investigate and get a confession on the assumption that a tax fraud may have happened. They said empowering IROs with such an authority would lead to corrupt practices besides harassment. Mustafa Ashraf, a tax consultant, also pointed out that how a commission can extend approval for arrest a taxpayer when he's not present on the spot simply on the statement of IRO regarding a tax fraud. No procedure has been defined and the commissioner would be authorizing IRO on his verbal briefing on tax fraud, he wondered. Also, he added that how an IRO can arrest a taxpayer first and seek an approval from the commissioner in the follow up. Some other tax experts dubbed the said provision as a complete ambiguity. They said the said provision also lacks the procedure regarding pre or post arrest bail of taxpayers. No such opportunity has been given to taxpayers and IRO has been bestowed with unlimited powers. It is nothing but harassment and sole discretion of IROs. Also, the provision does not suggest action against IROs in case their mala fide is established at the end of the whole exercise, they asserted. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
15 hours ago
- Business Recorder
SC highlights defects in Sindh Co-operative Societies Act
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court highlighted defects in Sindh Co-operative Societies Act, 2020, and called for correction/ amendment by the Sindh provincial legislatures for appropriate rectification. The Sindh Co-operative Societies Act, 2020, which by virtue of Section 119 of the Act, repealed the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to cooperative societies in the Province of Sindh to facilitate the formation and working of co-operative societies for the promotion of thrift, self-help, and mutual aid among agriculturists and other persons with common economic needs, so as to bring about better living, better business, and better methods of production. The judgment of two-judge bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, which heard civil petition against the Sindh High Court (SHC) regarding immovable property dispute, noted that instead of providing right of appeal to the High Court in the Act, which is a substantive right, it is provided in the Rules. Furthermore, the nature/ categories of disputes required to be resolved or decided by the Special Court for Cooperatives are also provided in the Rules rather than being defined in the Act with a specific provision to deal with civil disputes, just as offences are properly described in the Act itself without any ambiguity. It stated; Some corrections in the nomenclature of the Act are also required in Section 104 of the Act, which articulates: '(1) No Court other than the Special Court for Cooperative Societies established under section 121 shall try offences under this Chapter and disputes referred to in section 78'. The judgment further noted; 'The Act ends at Section 119 and there is no Section 121 in the Act. While Section 78 is germane to transfer of property which cannot be sold, and the execution of an order sought to be executed under Sections 81 and 82.' The judgment said perhaps due to misprinting or inadvertence, instead of Sections 73 and 117, the wrong taxonomies of sections of the Act are printed, which is causing confusion and is open to correction/ amendment by the provincial legislatures/ government of Sindh for appropriate rectification. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
16 hours ago
- Express Tribune
'Cross-examination can't be denied'
The Supreme Court has ruled that denying the opportunity of cross-examination to a witness constitutes a violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. A five-page judgment authored by Justice Salahuddin Panwar, while setting aside the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, noted that the cross-examination was the highest and most indispensable test known to the law for the discovery of truth. The top court said that the reliability of evidence can only be judged through cross-examination, which is essential to reveal the truth and test the credibility of allegations. This is especially important when the possibility cannot be ruled out in the inquiry that a witness may raise untrue and dishonest allegations due to some animosity against the accused, which cannot be accepted unless he undergoes the test of cross-examination, which indeed helps to expose the truth and veracity of allegations. The petitioner, who was serving as a superintendent of police (PSP-BS-18), was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He was issued a charge sheet and a statement of allegations for committing acts of omission, thereby constituting inefficiency, misconduct and corruption in terms of Rule 3(a)(b) and (c) of the government servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. The proceedings against the petitioner were initiated pursuant to an order dated December 23,2015, passed by the Supreme Court, and the Sindh government forwarded the names of other PSP officers, including the petitioner, for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. However, during the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner was summoned, heard in person, and his statement/reply was recorded against the said charge sheet. The statements of 138 witnesses were recorded, but he was not allowed to cross-examine any of them. After completion of the inquiry, the report was submitted on 12.11.2018 to the authorised officer, who forwarded it to the Secretary (Establishment) with the recommendation to impose the major penalty of "Reduction to Lower Stage in Time Scale for Three Years" under Rule-4(b)(ii) of the government servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Federal Service Tribunal (FST) upheld the punishment. The petitioner later approached the Supreme Court. The order notes that the main objective of cross-examination is to rigorously scrutinise the witness's testimony, reveal any inconsistencies, uncover potential biases, and critically assess the reliability of the evidence presented.
