Law: Companies Ordinance, 1984

Section: 2

  Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--- --S. 2(28)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XL, R.1---Private  limited  company---Dispute  between share-holders---Remedy---Rights between share holders of a private limited company are akin to and in the nature of disputes between parties in a firm---Where one partner was shown to be acting adversely the interest of the other or others, such partners, have a present right to -,possess the transgressor and waste, a necessary ingredient to be established for grant of equitable remedy of appointment of an Interim Receiver, is to be assumed to subsist. Ladli Prasad v. Karnal Distillery Co. PLD 1965 SC 221 and Lilawati v. .Anwarul 1sl;,m PLD 1971 Kar. 25 rel. Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--- S. 2(28)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O XL, R.1---Private limited company---Appointment of Receiver---Essentials---Material brought on record showed elements of malversation and misappropriation in defendants/shareholders' conduct of the affairs of the company---Plaintiff Company was able to show that all its assets, irretrievably, lie with the defendant---Defendant seemed to he '. '- - the will of the majority of shareholders who in sly tenure, as Managing Director showed no sign of giving up---Till such time as the controversies in the suit were decided, appointment of interim Receiver appeared,   pre-eminently to be in order so as to meet the ends of justice ---Nazir of the Court was thus appointed as Interim Receiver to take over all the assets of the Company. Practice and procedure--- --- Same facts can give rise to civil and criminal proceedings and the two can be pursued simultaneously, for, the object of each is different. Qammer Muhammad Khan for Plaintiffs. Abid Saeed Khan Ghori for Defendant. Dates of hearing: 26th Februay and 6th March, 1989. ORDER The facts relevant to this order are that the Plaintiff, a Private Limited Company, sues through Jalaluddin Ansari, Muhammad Sharif Ansari and Choudhry Ghulam Nabi, the first of whom is described as its Managing Director whereas the other two are mentioned as Directors. The claim in suit is one for declaration, inter alia,…