"\u003chtml xmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chead\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=ProgId content=Word.Document\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"2016J4_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003eDETERMINATION OF FACTUAL CONTROVERSY\u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003eOratier\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003eOratier\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e2\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e0\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2016-12-24T09:22:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2016-12-24T09:22:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e1\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e1112\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e6344\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eOratier\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e52\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e14\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e7442\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e11.5606\u003c/o:Version\u003e\r\n \u003c/o:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:WordDocument\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotHyphenateCaps/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:PunctuationKerning/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e0\u003c/w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e3\u003c/w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003efalse\u003c/w:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003efalse\u003c/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:IgnoreMixedContent\u003efalse\u003c/w:IgnoreMixedContent\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003efalse\u003c/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotUnderlineInvalidXML/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotShadeFormData/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:Compatibility\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:FootnoteLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ShapeLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:AlignTablesRowByRow/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ForgetLastTabAlignment/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutRawTableWidth/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutTableRowsApart/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord97LineBreakingRules/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:SelectEntireFieldWithStartOrEnd/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord2002TableStyleRules/\u003e\r\n  \u003c/w:Compatibility\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:BrowserLevel\u003eMicrosoftInternetExplorer4\u003c/w:BrowserLevel\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" LatentStyleCount=\"156\"\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:LatentStyles\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal\r\n\t{mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmargin:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\n /* Page Definitions */\r\n @page\r\n\t{mso-page-border-surround-header:no;\r\n\tmso-page-border-surround-footer:no;}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:8.5in 11.0in;\r\n\tmargin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;\r\n\tmso-header-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-footer-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-paper-source:0;}\r\ndiv.Section1\r\n\t{page:Section1;}\r\n--\u003e\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 10]\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n table.MsoNormalTable\r\n\t{mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\r\n\tmso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-style-noshow:yes;\r\n\tmso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\r\n\tmso-para-margin:0in;\r\n\tmso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:10.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-ansi-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-fareast-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-bidi-language:#0400;}\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003c/head\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in;text-justify-trim:punctuation\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eDETERMINATION OF FACTUAL CONTROVERSY\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eBY COMPANY JUDGE\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eBy\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eMuhammad Shafiq\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eCivil Judge Ist Class, Rahim Yar Khan\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebeauty\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ewith\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003elaw\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eis\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethat\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eits\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ekeeps\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eon\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003emoving\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewith\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe needs\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003etime.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eMostly \u0026quot;Law\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ePrecedents\u0026quot; caters these needs. A legal\r\nsystem requires that precedents, once established, receive a significant\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edegree\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ejudicial respect and\r\ndeference. Frequent, arbitrary, or capricious overruling of established\r\nprecedents would destroy the foundation of the system. On the other hand,\r\nabsolute adherence to precedent would prevent the correction of manifest\r\nerrors. Therefore, the survival and success of a precedential system depends\r\nupon the maintenance of a reasonable balance between stability and change.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nvalue of law system is that the law can be adapted to situations that were not\r\ncontemplated by the legislature. Usually the legislators use legal terms in\r\nvery broad and general sense. Courts decide what these general terms mean when\r\nthey hear specific lawsuits or \u0026quot;cases\u0026quot;.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003elegislatures pass very specific statutes, and\r\nthese are applied by the courts. Each judge who decides a case looks to the\r\nstatute, rather than the previous cases, for guidance. In theory, in ambiguous\r\ncases each judge is free to reinterpret the statute as necessary to fit the\r\nfacts\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003especific\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ecase.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eAlthough\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethis\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003einterpretation\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eneed\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003enot draw on previous decisions by other judges. The judges do try to ensure\r\nsome consistency in the application of the law by taking into consideration\r\nprevious court decisions but they may deviate from the same if consider fit.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eGenerally,\r\nthere are two modes of trials in the courts or tribunals, i.e. regular trials\r\nor summary trials. Different laws provide different mode of trials. The Company\r\nLaw Ordinance, 1984 postulates mechanism of summary trial before Company Court\r\n(judge). For ready reference, section 9(3) of the Ordinance ibid is reproduced:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:11.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;In\r\nthe exercise of its jurisdiction as aforesaid, the Court shall, in all matters\r\nbefore it, follow the summary procedure.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:10.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn\r\na recent landmark judgment titled \u003cu\u003eMian Javed Amir and others v. United Foam\r\nIndustries (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore and others\u003c/u\u003e cited as (2016 SCMR 213), the\r\naugust Supreme Court of Pakistan has laid down that the Company Judge of High\r\nCourt, while exercising company jurisdiction, can record evidence and decide\r\nfactual controversies as well.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:10.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003ePrecise\r\nfacts of the stated case are that the Appellants were shareholders to the\r\nextent of 38% in the referred Company. They challenged alleged transfer of said\r\nshares by the respondents before the company Judge praying for winding up of\r\nthe company and rectification of registers of - shareholders on the ground that\r\nthe respondents had manipulated the record and made bogus entries in the\r\nregister qua alleged transfer. The respondents denied such allegation and\r\nlevelled counter\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eallegation\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ein\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ewritten\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003estatement.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eThe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eCompany\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eJudge decided to refer\r\nthe matter to SECP to appoint an Inspector for investigation into the stated\r\nallegations. Two ICAs filed by the respondents against the said order were\r\nallowed, holding that the Civil Court would be the appropriate forum for\r\nadjudication of the controversy between the parties. CMs of the appellants\r\nagainst the said order were also dismissed.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:10.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eEarlier\r\nfor determination of factual controversy, some Company Judges in \u003cu\u003eLight Metal\r\nand Rubber Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Sarfraz Quadri\u003c/u\u003e (2011 CLD 1485), \u003cu\u003eMian\r\nMiraj Din v. Brothers Steel Mills (1996 CLC 516), Brothers Steel Ltd and others\r\nv. Mian Miraj Din\u003c/u\u003e (PLD 1995 SC 320) and \u003cu\u003eAttock Refinery Ltd v. Executive\r\nDirector Enforcement and Monitoring Division, SECP\u003c/u\u003e (PLD 2010 SC 946)\r\nreferred matters to the SECP to appoint an Inspector under sections 263 and 265\r\nof the Company Ordinance, 1984 because they held that in view of this special\r\nlaw, matters pertaining to companies could not be referred to Civil Courts.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:10.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eSome\r\nSuperiors Courts of Pakistan and India in \u003cu\u003eLahore Race Club through Secretary\r\nv. Raja Khushbakhat-ur-Rehman\u003c/u\u003e (PLD 2008 SC 707), \u003cu\u003eMuhammad Aslam Javed v.\r\nMalik Ijaz Ahmed and another\u003c/u\u003e (2003 YLR 2150), \u003cu\u003eMuhammad Ahmed v.\r\nAssociate Engineering Concern (Pvt.) Ltd\u003c/u\u003e. (1998 CLC 426), \u003cu\u003eMessrs Ammonia\r\nSupplies Corporation Ltd v. Messrs Modern Plastic Containers (Pvt.) Ltd\u003c/u\u003e.\r\n(AIR 1998 SC 3173) and \u003cu\u003eMessrs Ammonia Supplies Corporation Ltd v. Messrs Modern\r\nPlastic Containers (Pvt.) Ltd\u003c/u\u003e. (AIR 1994 Delhi 51) respectively held that\r\nthe findings in regard to ownership of shareholding could only be determined by\r\nCivil Courts.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eHowever,\r\naugust Supreme Court of Pakistan in \u003cu\u003eJaved Amir and others v. United Foam\r\nIndustries (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore and others\u003c/u\u003e. Cited as 2016 SCMR 213 has\r\nmodified the above referred principles and has laid down the following\r\nprinciples:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:11.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(1)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eSection\r\n9(3) of the Company Ordinance, 1984 does not abridge or curtail the power of\r\nthe court to record oral evidence or receive documentary evidence in the\r\nproceedings before it to determine the issues relating to \u0026quot;Company\u0026quot;\r\nor its members covered under the Ordinance ibid.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:11.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(2)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eAll\r\nmatters relating to companies irrespective of the facts whether factual\r\ncontroversy involved or not is required to be tried by a court having\r\njurisdiction under the Company Ordinance, 1984.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:11.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(3)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eMere\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003einsertion\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eterm \u0026quot;summary procedure\u0026quot; does not\r\ndebar the Company Judge from receiving evidence in cases where factual\r\ncontroversy is involved. The court having jurisdiction under the Company\r\nOrdinance, 1984 can receive evidence in cases it thinks appropriate in the\r\ncircumstances of the case.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:11.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(4)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eThe object\r\nof section 152 (Powers to Court to rectify register) of the Company Ordinance.\r\n1984, which relates to factual controversy, cannot be achieved without entering\r\ninto in-depth investigation and recording of evidence.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:11.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(5)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eThere is\r\nno legal bar for a Company Court to enter into factual inquiry, framing of\r\nissues for determination and recording of oral as well as documentary evidence\r\nin coming to the just conclusion of the case.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:11.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(6)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003ePower to\r\nappoint an Inspector under sections 263 and 265 of the Company Ordinance, 1984\r\nvests with SECP on an application by a member of the company or the Registrar\r\nof the Commission. The areas in which Inspector was directed to investigate\r\nfalls within the jurisdiction of the Company Court and can be investigated and\r\nlooked into by a Company Judge himself.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(7)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\ndictionary meaning of the term \u0026quot;Summary Proceedings\u0026quot; referred to in\r\nsection 9 of the Company Ordinance, 1984, is \u0026quot;to be\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edisposed\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003epromptly\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ein\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esimple\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003emanner\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eout\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eregular course\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe common law\u0026quot;. This term by itself\r\ndoes not impose any restriction on the forum from recording evidence to reach a\r\nfinal conclusion. Section 9 of the Ordinance of 1984 does not exclude the\r\njurisdiction of the court to decide the controversial facts.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eNow\r\nArticle 10-A of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eguarantees\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003efair\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003etrial\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eand\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003edue\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eprocess.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eGolden\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eprinciple\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof law\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eis\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethat\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eeach\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eparty\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eshould\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003egiven\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003efull opportunity\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eprove its\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003estance\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewith\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eoral\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eas\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewell\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edocumentary evidence. The august Supreme\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eCourt\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ein\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esaid\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003erecent\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ecase\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ehas\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003enot\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eonly\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edefined\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe power\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eCompany\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eCourt\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebut\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eit\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ehas\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ealso\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eclearly\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewidened\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe scope of the Company judge to enter into\r\nin-depth investigation and recording of evidence in the proceedings before it\r\nto determine the issues relating to \u0026quot;Company\u0026quot; or its members covered\r\nunder the Company Ordinance, 1984.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/body\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/html\u003e\r\n"