Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 632 2017 SLD 632 2017 MLD 372
Islamabad High Court
I.C.A No. 138 of 2016, decided on 15th June, 2016.
AAMER FAROOQ, JUSTICE, MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Abdul Wahab Baloch for Appellant. Noman Amin Farooqi and Khurram M. Hashmi, for
Respondents. Khawaja Muhammad Imtiaz for the State.

MESSRS CARGILL HOLDINGS --Appellant

VS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, CABINET DIVISION AND OTHERS --RespondentS

Law:

Section:

Privatization Commission Ordinance (LII of 2000)--- ----S.33---Privatization of industrial unit---Contractual obligation, failure to comply with ---.--- APPELLANT sought restraining order against Privatization Commission from re-advertising sale of shares of Heavy Electrical Complex---Single Judge of High Court declined to restrain the Commission---Validity ---.--- APPELLANT did not pay Rs. 225 million within 45 days of issuance of "Letter of Acceptance" and the Letter stood revoked---Authorities extended concession to appellant by depositing cheque issued by appellant for encashment on a date beyond specified date---Mere fact that account holder had instructed its Bank not to make any payment under the cheque brought the matter to a close---High Court, in intra-court appeal, declined to interfere in the order passed by Single Judge---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE:---.--- Through the instant appeal under Section 33 of the Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000, the appellant, Messrs Cargill Holdings, which is a company incorporated under the laws of Kenya, impugns the Order dated 04.03.2016, passed by learned Single Judge-in-Chambers, dismissing the appellant's applications (C.M.Nos.1 and 2/2015 in C.S.No.37/2015). Through these applications, the appellant had sought an interim injunction restraining the respondents from re-advertising the sale of Heavy Electrical Complex's ("HEC's") shares, and a direction to the respondents to transfer the management of HEC to the appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant's letter dated 21.05.2015 (accepting the terms and conditions of the Letter of Acceptance ("LOA") and Share Purchase Agreement ("SPA"), and furnishing a cheque for US Dollars 2,205,882/-) was prior in time to respondent No.2's letter, whereby the LOA was stated to be revoked by afflux of time; that respondent No.2 should not have presented the cheque for encashment on 26.05.2015 when the appellant had explicitly requested it to present the cheque on 28.05.2015; that the SPA could not be signed prior to 21.05.2015, because there were several unresolved…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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