Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 158 2019 SLD 158 2019 CLD 72
Sindh High Court
J.C. M. No. 29 of 2016, decision Dated: 11-07-2018. hearing Dated: 16-05-2018.
MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Haider Waheed
Respondent(s) by: Arshad Tayebaly Naveed-ul-Haq for National Bank of Pakistan.

PERVEZ ARSHAD AND ANOTHER

VS

RAUF TEXTILES AND PRINTING MILLS (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND 12 OTHERS

Law: Companies Ordinance, 1984

Section: 309,310,325

Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--- ----Ss. 325, 310 & 309---Application for winding-up of company---Circumstances in which company may be wound-up by Court---Appointment of provisional manager by the Court at an interim stage---Principles and consideration---Exercise of discretion by Court under S. 325 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984--- Scope--- Order for appointment of a provisional manager was only to be passed when, at the interim stage, there were valid and justified grounds available showing that ultimately an order for winding-up would definitely be passed by the Court as provisional manager had the same powers as an official liquidator appointed by a Court through final order of winding-up---Such appointment had serious consequences and if ultimately an application for winding-up a company was dismissed, then there existed no way to undo acts performed by a provisional manager---Such remedy of appointment of provisional manager was an exceptional one and the Court invariably had discretion on the same---Discretion and prerogative vested in the Court under S. 325 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 was well-tempered by established considerations that such an appointment was a drastic intrusion into affairs of a company and must not be resorted to if other measures would be adequate to preserve the status-quo and therefore an application for such appointment must show valid and good reasons---Considerations for the Court on such appointment were, whether there was a reasonable prospect that winding-up order would be made, whether assets of the company were at risk, the degree of urgency and need for an independent examination of the state of accounts, whether affairs of the company had been carried out casually and without due regard to legal requirements so as to leave the court with no confidence that the company's affairs were properly conducted and finally; whether there was a need to preserve status quo so to ensure least possible harm to all concerned. The United Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Pak Wheat Products Ltd. PLD 1970 Lah. 235; Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. Karachi v. National Silk and Rayon Mills Ltd., Lyallpur PLD 1976…
🔒
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