| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 1092 2017 SLD 1092 2017 LHC 2616 |
Lahore High Court
C.O No. 7 of 2016, C.M No. 443 & 444 of 2017, Date ofHearing. 29-05-2017, Announced in open Court on 19.06.2017.
SHAHID KARIM, JUSTICE
PETITIONER BY: M/s Babar Sattar, Shahzain Abdullah and Asghar Leghari, Advocates.RESPONDENTS BY: Ms. Ayesha Hamid, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4, 7 & 8.Barrister Hamza Gulzar for respondents No.5 & 6.Mr. Haroon Duggal, Advocate for respondent N
C.O No. 7 of 2016, C.M No. 443 & 444 of 2017, Date ofHearing. 29-05-2017, Announced in open Court on 19.06.2017.
SHAHID KARIM, JUSTICE
PETITIONER BY: M/s Babar Sattar, Shahzain Abdullah and Asghar Leghari, Advocates.RESPONDENTS BY: Ms. Ayesha Hamid, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4, 7 & 8.Barrister Hamza Gulzar for respondents No.5 & 6.Mr. Haroon Duggal, Advocate for respondent N
TARIQ NASIM JAN & OTHERSVSALHAMRA HILLS (PVT.) LIMITED & OTHERS
Law: Companies Ordinance, 1984
Section: 290,291,292,305,309,309(d)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 24
Law: Code of Civil Procedure of 1882
Section: 151
C.M No. 443 & 444 of 2017 JUDGMENT Shahid Karim, J:- This is an application under Order VII, Rule 11 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for the dismissal of the petition under Sections 290, 291, 292 ("the petition") of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 ("the Ordinance, 1984"). This application has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 ("the application"). 2. At the heart of this application is the challenge to the competence of the petitioners to maintain the petition on the ground that they are neither covered by the term 'member' or 'creditor' as used in section 290 of the Ordinance, 1984 which only entitles either a member or a creditor to bring the petition under Section 290 and, therefore, the petition ought to be dismissed on the threshold. The learned counsel for the parties were required to address their arguments on the baseline issue raised in this application. Relevant Facts: 3. In order to lend actuality to the controversy involved and the legal question which is sought to be determined in this application, certain basic and primary facts will have to be brought forth. It is the case of the petitioners that they have collectively paid a sum of Rs.2.4 billion as consideration for plots of land in a country farm Housing scheme launched and marketed by the respondent No. 1 Al- Hamra Hills (Private) Limited ("Al-Hamra Hills") during 2005-06. This amount constitutes three times the amount of paid up share capital of Al-Hamra Hills and, therefore, the petitioners are allottees of the plots having deposited the consideration. Al-Hamra Hills failed to develop and hand over the plots in accordance with the legal obligations and reneged on its promises and continued to solicit additional deposits from the members of public. The petitioners No.1 to 7 claim to be professionals of eminence and petitioner No.8 is an association created under an agreement to protect the interests of allottees of respondent No.1. By that token, the petitioners claim to be the creditors and investors of respondent No.1 who were each sold a plot of land in 2006 in Zone IV of Islamabad Capital Territory within Al-Hamra Hills Agro Farming Scheme…