Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 1664 2023 CLD 570 2023 SLD 1664
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 1529 of 2018, decided on 13th June, 2022.Dates ofhearing: 25th August, 16th, 24th September, 8th October,2021 and 3rd June, 2022.
Before Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, J
Qazi Umair Ali for Plaintiff. Muhammad Zeeshan Abdullah and Adnan Abdullah for Defendant No. 1. Abdul Qayyum Abbasi for Defendant No. 2. Taimur Ali Mirza for Defendant No. 3. Nemo for Defendant No. 4.

MOHAMMAD AHMAD ANSARI---Plaintiff

VERSUS

INTERGLOBE COMMERCE PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. and others---Defendants

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 1,2

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 2---Suit for specific performance of agreement---Interim injunction, grant of---Lifting of veil of incorporation---Scope---Plaintiff claimed that the Company, a family-owned business, violated an Undertaking that entitled each brother to a 25% share in Companys assets---Despite entrusting control to a brother (defendant), the plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to uphold the agreement---In 2005, the company sold its Islamabad property and divided the proceeds among the brothers---Subsequently, they agreed to sell the Clifton property, but a lawsuit arose due to a delay in the sale agreement---Ultimately settled in 2018, the buyer deposited funds with the Court for release to the Company---Plaintiff sought his rightful share, filing a lawsuit to halt the release of funds deposited with the Court and to enforce the Undertaking---Validity---Plaintiff had prima facie demonstrated that the Company and its shareholders had acted upon the Undertaking by treating the immovable assets of the Company as the joint assets of the brothers---But what still remained to be seen was whether that practice of the parties was sufficient justification for a Court of law to ignore the corporate personality of the Company so as to enforce the Undertaking against the Company---Answer to such question would in turn determine the ownership of the sale proceeds of the Clifton property lying with the Court---Till such time, the plaintiff had made out an arguable case for preserving the sale proceeds---Application was disposed of by restraining the Company from obtaining release of sale proceeds. President v. Mr. Justice Shaukat Ali PLD 1971 SC 585; Central Board of Revenue v. S.I.T.E. PLD 1985 SC 97; Nagina Films Ltd. v. Usman Hussain 1987 CLC 2263; Union Council Ali Wahan, Sukkur v. Associated Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. 1993 SCMR 468 and Ladli Prasad Jaiswal v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. PLD 1965 SC 221 rel. Theresa Henry v. Calixtus Henry 2010 1 ALL ER 988; U.I.G. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Muhammad Imran Qureshi 2011 CLC 758; V. B. Rangaraj v. V. B. Gopalakrishnan AIR 1992 SC 201; Commissioner of…
🔒
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