| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 3391 2016 SLD 3391 2016 CLD 1604 |
Sindh High Court
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J. AND ZULFIQAR AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE
Ijaz Ahmed Zahid for Petitioner. Khalid Jawed for
Respondents.
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J. AND ZULFIQAR AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE
Ijaz Ahmed Zahid for Petitioner. Khalid Jawed for
Respondents.
HUM NETWORK LIMITED
VS
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN court through Chairman and 3 others
Law:
Section:
Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)------- --------Ss. 230, 231 & 290-------Books of accounts of company-------Inspection-------Notice was issued by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan directing petitioner company to provide certified copies of audit committee, Board meetings, contracts executed by petitioner company and other documents to the respondent who was one of the Directors of the petitioner company-------Validity-------Path available to an unsatisfied Director was to bring the matter to the knowledge of regulator (Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan), which depending on the merits of the case and for reasons to be recorded, could commence preliminary inquiry into affairs of a company by commencing inspection proceedings of books of accounts etc. under S.231 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 and could obtain copies of any required documents-------If a Director held not less than 20% of issued share capital of company he could directly approach court under S.290 of Companies Ordinance, 1984, alleging that affairs of company were being conducted in an unlawful, fraudulent or oppressive manner seeking court intervention thereby discharging his fiduciary duties in respect of the company-------Law permitted availability of books of accounts etc. under S. 230(4) of Companies Ordinance, 1984 to Directors during business hours and there were no provisions letting a Director making copies of books of accounts etc.-------Notice in question was issued by Registrar under S. 230(4) of Companies Ordinance, 1984 which did not grant any power to the Registrar to seek copies of any document-------Petitioner company committed no illegality in refusing to provide documents in question to the Registrar-------Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. Frank H. Easterbrook & Daniel R. Fischel, Limited Liability and the Corporation, (1985) 52 U.CHI.L.REV.89; Salomon v. Salomon & Co., (House of Lords, (1896), [1897] A.C. 22 HL; Mutter v. Eastern and Midlands Railway Company 1888 M 469 - 92 Chancery Division XXXVIII; 1978 1 All ER 185 and AIR 1938 Cal. 89 ref. 2012 CLD 923 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: ZULFIQAR AHMAD KHAN,…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492