| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2390 2026 SLD 2390 = 2026 LHC 3691 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Original No.3907/2024
Presented By: ABID AZIZ SHEIKH JUDGE
11-06-2026 M/s Mansoor Hassan Khan and Barrister Noman Ahmad Langrial, Advocates for the applicant/petitioner. M/s Khawaja Ahmed Tariq Rahim, Hissam Tariq Rahim and Muhammad Azhar Siddique, Advocates for respondent No.1-JJVL. M/s Ruman Bilal and Syed Asad Haider, Advocates for respondent No.2-SECP. Mr. Muhammad Ali Malik, Advocate for the purchaser-LSE Capital Limited. Barrister Hamid Azim Leghari, Advocate for Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (SSGCL). Ms. Shagufta Siddiqui, Senior Manager Pakistan Stock Exchange Limited (PSX).
Civil Original No.3907/2024
Presented By: ABID AZIZ SHEIKH JUDGE
11-06-2026 M/s Mansoor Hassan Khan and Barrister Noman Ahmad Langrial, Advocates for the applicant/petitioner. M/s Khawaja Ahmed Tariq Rahim, Hissam Tariq Rahim and Muhammad Azhar Siddique, Advocates for respondent No.1-JJVL. M/s Ruman Bilal and Syed Asad Haider, Advocates for respondent No.2-SECP. Mr. Muhammad Ali Malik, Advocate for the purchaser-LSE Capital Limited. Barrister Hamid Azim Leghari, Advocate for Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (SSGCL). Ms. Shagufta Siddiqui, Senior Manager Pakistan Stock Exchange Limited (PSX).
Exterran Services (U.K.) Limited
VS
. Jamshoro Joint Venture Limited etc.
Law: Companies Act, 2017
Section: 306, 391
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: 1 & 2
Tagline Validity of share transfers during the pendency of a winding-up petition; distinction between "commencement of winding up" and the "winding-up order" under Sections 306 and 391 of the Companies Act, 2017. Summary The applicant-company sought an interim injunction to restrain a transfer of 10% shareholding in Jamshoro Joint Venture Limited (JJVL) to LSE Capital Limited. The applicant contended that because a winding-up petition had been instituted prior to the transfer, the transaction was void ab initio under Section 391, read with Section 306 of the Companies Act, 2017. The High Court dismissed the application, clarifying several critical legal principles: Voidable vs. Void Ab Initio: The Court held that transactions made during the "interregnum" (the period between the filing of the petition and the passing of the order) are not incurable nullities. They remain valid and operative but are "vulnerable" to being declared void if a winding-up order is eventually issued. Trigger for Statutory Prohibition: The legal consequences of Section 391 are only attracted upon the passing of a formal winding-up order. Until such an order is made, the company is not paralyzed from carrying out its ordinary business or managing its affairs. Prevention of Corporate Sabotage: An interpretation that renders every post-petition transaction automatically void would allow frivolous petitions to be used as tools of oppression to destroy a company's commercial viability and paralyze day-to-day operations. Failure to Establish Prima Facie Case: Since no winding-up order had yet been passed, the share transfer remained prima facie valid. Consequently, the applicant failed to meet the threshold for the grant of a temporary injunction. ORDER; The applicant/petitioner-company has filed the instant application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), read with Section 391 of the Companies Act, 2017 ("Act"), seeking the interim injunctive relief with the following prayer:- "In the light of the above-mentioned facts and legal…