| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3784 2025 SLD 3784 = 2025 CLD 921 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 1843 to 1846 of 2019 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1138 of 2020, decided on 8th May, 2025. (Against the judgment dated 16.09.2019 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in High Court Appeals Nos. 107 of 2012, 114 of 2012 and 109 of 2012). Per Yahya Afridi, CJ; Amin-ud-Din Khan, J. agreeing; Ayesha A. Malik, J. dissenting.
Present: Yahya Afridi, CJ, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Ayesha A. Malik, JJ
Haider Waheed, Advocate Supreme Court and Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As.Nos. 1843 and 1846 of 2019). Salman Akram Raja, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 1844 and 1845 of 2019). Wasim Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Shah Khawar, Advocate Supreme Court, Muhammad Masood Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Barrister Umer Aslam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents Nos. 4 to 6. Omer Azad Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 7 (SECP). Farooq H. Naek, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.A. No. 1138 of 2020)
Civil Appeals Nos. 1843 to 1846 of 2019 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1138 of 2020, decided on 8th May, 2025. (Against the judgment dated 16.09.2019 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in High Court Appeals Nos. 107 of 2012, 114 of 2012 and 109 of 2012). Per Yahya Afridi, CJ; Amin-ud-Din Khan, J. agreeing; Ayesha A. Malik, J. dissenting.
Present: Yahya Afridi, CJ, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Ayesha A. Malik, JJ
Haider Waheed, Advocate Supreme Court and Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As.Nos. 1843 and 1846 of 2019). Salman Akram Raja, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 1844 and 1845 of 2019). Wasim Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Shah Khawar, Advocate Supreme Court, Muhammad Masood Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Barrister Umer Aslam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents Nos. 4 to 6. Omer Azad Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 7 (SECP). Farooq H. Naek, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.A. No. 1138 of 2020)
SHER ASFANDYAR KHAN and 3 others---Appellants
VERSUS
NEELOFAR SHAH and others---Respondents
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: X,72,74,75,76
Law: Companies Ordinance, 1984
Section: XLVII,7,9,148,290,291
(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Art. 76---Secondary evidence---Scope---Failure to ensure compliance with Article 76 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 vitiates evidentiary basis upon which findings of Courts below were rendered, necessitating intervention by Supreme Court.(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)-------Ss. 7, 9, 148, 290 & 291---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 76---Corporate affairs---Oppression and mismanagement---Proof---Summary proceedings--Secondary evidence---Non-seeking of permission---Effect---Proceedings under sections 290 and 291 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 were initiated against respondents for inquiry into mismanagement and oppression in corporate affairs--Company Judge allowed the petition and Division Bench of High Court dismissed the appeal---Objection was raised by appellant on admissibility of secondary evidence---Validity---Company Judge erred in proceeding summarily in a dispute that required a full evidentiary examination---Nature of the controversy, involving serious allegations of forgery and fabrication, necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence; procedural safeguards that were improperly bypassed--Statutory prohibition under section 148 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 (section 121 of Companies Act, 2017) precluded recognition of a trust over shares in the company's register, reinforcing the principle that the company was not bound to take notice of any alleged trust arrangement---Claim of trust, as asserted by respondents, was legally untenable---Improper admission of secondary evidence in violation of Article 76 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 undermined validity of proceedings---Failure to establish preconditions for admissibility of secondary evidence rendered reliance on disputed documents unsustainable---Discretion of Company Judge in treating the Shareholders' Agreements as genuine was exercised in disregard of established legal principles, given the absence of a proper evidentiary inquiry---Division Bench, in upholding such finding, failed to recognize procedural and substantive irregularities in the adjudication of the case--Parties could pursue their respective claims in pending civil suits, wherein…