| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 890 2020 SLD 890 2020 CLD 596 |
Sindh High Court
C.P. No. D-5016 of 2019, decided on 5th December, 2019, Dates of hearing: 27th August, 3rd, 17th September, 3rd and 15th October, 2019.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE AGHA FAISAL, JUSTICE
Altamash Arab for Petitioners. Khalid Jawed Khan for
Respondent No. 1. Tariq Qureshi for
Respondent No. 3. Syed Hafiz Abad, Law Officer for
Respondent No. 2.
C.P. No. D-5016 of 2019, decided on 5th December, 2019, Dates of hearing: 27th August, 3rd, 17th September, 3rd and 15th October, 2019.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE AGHA FAISAL, JUSTICE
Altamash Arab for Petitioners. Khalid Jawed Khan for
Respondent No. 1. Tariq Qureshi for
Respondent No. 3. Syed Hafiz Abad, Law Officer for
Respondent No. 2.
AKD INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED AND OTHERS
VS
JS INVESTMENT LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Law: Companies Act, 2017
Section: 88
(a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Constitutional petition against private company/persons---Impleading of official respondents in private dispute---Scope---Illusory inclusion of official respondents for invocation of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court merely to overcome objections of High Court with respect to maintainability of Constitutional petition, had to be disapproved. Pakistan Olympic Association and others v. Nadeem Aftab Sindhu and others 2019 SCMR 221 and Muhammad Saddiq and another v. Ruqaya Khanum and others PLD 2001 Kar. 60 rel. (b) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)--- ----S. 88---Power of a company to purchase its own shares---Purchased shares either be cancelled or held as treasury shares---Scope---Companies Act, 2017 recognized acquisition of own shares by a Company for cancellation or for holding as treasury shares---Section 88 of Companies Act, 2017 therefore contemplated two distinct situations, and word "or" used therein signified that such two situations which were disjunctive. (c) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Principles of Construction--- When a statute provided for a particular thing to be done in a specific manner, then it had to be done in such manner and Courts were not designed to legislate but had to interpret statutes according to their ordinary and plain meaning---Courts could not import or supply words or provisions no matter how laudable and desirable doing so appeared---Courts could not put into a statute words which were not expressed and which could not be reasonably implied on any recognized principle of construction. Zahid Iqbal v. Hafiz Muhammad Adnan and others 2016 SCMR 430; Nadeem Ahmed Advocate v. Federation of Pakistan 2013 SCMR 1062 and Amanullah Khan v. Chief Secretary N.W.F.P. and others 1995 SCMR 1856 rel. JUDGMENT AGHA FAISAL, J.---The petitioners, representing themselves to be minority shareholders of the respondent No. 1, being a public listed company, have filed this Constitutional petition seeking to restrain the said private respondent from carrying out the purchase/buyback of its own shares for cancellation. To illustrate the claim before us it…
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