SC’s Justice Naeem Afghan questions haste shown by NAB in auction – Pakistan

Islamabad: A Judge of the Supreme Court questioned on Friday the hurry shown by the National Office of Responsibility (NAB) at the auction of six properties of the city of Bahria when six references against Zain Malik were still pending award before a Court of Responsibility, which would decide on the confiscation of the properties if the defendant was proven.

“After instituting requests for the termination of the guilt agreement (Agreement approved in August 2020) between Zain Malik and NAB, the references against the accused have been reversed to the preliminary stage,” Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan, a member of the three Judge of Judge who had assumed the appeal of August 4 of the short orientation of Islam observed.

As the IHC in its brief ordination allowed NAB to move forward with the auction of the six attached properties, the anti-injack guard dog sold a property and received conditional offers for two other properties, with a combined value of RS2.27 billion.

However, the auction of three remaining properties was filed due to lack of qualification offers.

Tres members bank to listen to the appeal of the city of Bahria on a regular basis from 13

The SC decided that Bahria Town’s appeals would be solved before any bank available from three Judges of the Apex court for a regular hearing of August 13.

In its appeal, the city of Bahria argued that the short order of IHC to dismiss its supplication against the auction was bad in law and facts, since it suffered an incorrect reading and non -reading of the registration and applicable legal provisions.

Both the Order of August 4 of the Superior Court and the Order of May 23 of the Court of Responsibility did not have legal jurisdiction and in the flagrant violation of section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which does not authorize the attachment of properties that belong to third parties, the SC was informed.

The appellant argued that the IHC and the Court of Responsibility also did not distinguish between the accused assets and those owned by a separate and independent legal entity.

Posted in Dawn, August 9, 2025



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *