Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 451 2018 SLD 451 2018 CLD 80
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 859 of 2017, decision Date : 31-7-2017, hearing Date : 25-7-2017.
NAZAR AKBAR, JUSTICE
Abdul Salam Memon for Plaintiff No. 3. Saleemuddin A. Patoli, Assistant Attorney-General for Defendant No. 2. Ijaz Ahmed Zahid along with Sattar Bux Soomro, Director (Legal), SEPCO, Sukkur for Defendant No. 3.

AGHA IMTIAZ ALI KHAN BABAR AND 2 OTHERS

VS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF WATER AND POWER AND 2 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--- ----Ss. 178, 180, 181 & 183---Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, R. 5---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Electric Power Company---Board of Directors of company---Reconstitution of---Removal of a "Nominee Director"---Scope---Suit for declaration---Temporary injunction, grant of---Plaintiffs were nominated as Directors of Electric Power Company---Contention of plaintiffs was that they could not be removed except in accordance with the Companies Ordinance, 1984---Validity---Plaintiffs were not elected Directors of the Company---Notification with regard to appointment of defendant as Director of the Company was impugned in the earlier suit by one of the earlier Nominee Directors but plaintiffs despite having knowledge of the same did not contest the said suit nor attempted to become party in the same to protect their right, if any---Plaintiffs, therefore, had not approached the court with clean hands---Provisions of Ss. 178, 180 or 181 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 were not applicable to the Directors appointed under S. 183 of the Ordinance---Nominee Directors had no vested right to hold the office for any specified period---Powers of "removal" of a "Nominee Director" was inherent power of the Authority which nominated him---Nominee Director would hold the office "during the pleasure" of the Authority which nominated him---Plaintiffs having claimed a definite amount of damages as compensation on account of the alleged omissions or failure of discharge of duty by the Authority, would lose their right to seek restraining orders (injunction) on the ground of irreparable loss---Application for grant of injunction to suspend the impugned notification was refused in circumstances. Government of Pakistan and 3 others v. Kamruddin Valika 1996 CLC 1086 ref. Muhammad Mushtaq v. Chancellor, Government College University, Faisalabad 2005 PLC (C.S.) 1300; Syed Muhammad Ayyub (P.S.E.I. Executive Engineer, Irrigation v. The Government of West Pakistan PLD 1957 (W.P.) Lah. 487; The Province of the Punjab v. Ch. Nazir Hussain PLD 1956 (W.P.) Lah. 556…
🔒
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