| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5183 2024 SLD 5183 2024 CLD 890 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.77742 of 2023, decided on 3rd June, 2024. Date of hearing: 3rd june 2024
Before Abid Aziz Sheikh, J
Faisal Rasheed Ghouri for Petitioners. Syed Sajjad Haider Rizvi, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan for
Respondent No.1. Ruman Bilal for
Respondents Nos.2 to 6.
Writ Petition No.77742 of 2023, decided on 3rd June, 2024. Date of hearing: 3rd june 2024
Before Abid Aziz Sheikh, J
Faisal Rasheed Ghouri for Petitioners. Syed Sajjad Haider Rizvi, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan for
Respondent No.1. Ruman Bilal for
Respondents Nos.2 to 6.
Messrs FUTURE VISION ADVERTISING (PRIVATE) LIMITED---Petitioner
VERSUS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others---Respondents
Law: Companies Act, 2017
Section: 257(1),256(1)
(a) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)-------S. 257(1)---Expression "without prejudice to its power under S. 256, the Commission "---Scope---Provision of S.257(1) of Companies Act, 2017, commences with the expression "without prejudice to its power under S. 256, the Commission"---When such expression is used, it means that anything contained in the provision following such expression is not intended to cut down generality of the meaning of preceding provision.P Ramanatha Aiyar's Advance Law Lexicon, Volume 4 rel.(b) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)-------Ss. 256 (1) & 257 (1)---Affairs of company---Appointment of Inspectors---Jurisdiction---Petitioner / company assailed show cause notice issued by Commission regarding investigation of affairs of company on complaint filed by persons other than shareholders---Validity---Both in S. 256(1) and S. 257(1)(b) of Companies Act, 2017, Commission was to form an opinion before appointment of Inspectors---Such opinion under S. 257(1)(b) of Companies Act, 2017, was to be based upon circumstances suggesting various situations mentioned in clauses (i) to (vii) of S. 257(1)(b) of Companies Act, 2017---Formation of opinion under S. 256(1) of Companies Act, 2017, was not confined only to circumstances suggested in clauses (i) to (vii) of S. 257(1)(b) of Companies Act, 2017, but Commission had much wide powers to appoint Inspectors if it was necessary to investigate into affairs of the Company---Provision of S. 257(1)(b) of Companies Act, 2017, was a separate clause under which Commission had independent power to appoint Inspectors to investigate affairs of the Company if in its opinion there were circumstances suggesting the situation mentioned in subsections (i) to (vii) of S. 257(1)(b) of Companies Act, 2017---High Court declined to interfere in appointment of Inspectors to investigate affairs of petitioner / company---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.Tariq Iqbal Malik v. Messrs Multiplierz Group (Pvt.) Ltd. and 4 others 2022 CLD 468; Brothers Steel Ltd. and others v. Mian Mirajuddin and 15 others PLD 1995 SC 320 and Mian Miraj Din and others v. Brothers Steel Mills and others 1996 CLC 516 ref.(c) Words and…
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