Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLD 1750 = 1991 CLC 1520
Sindh High Court
Judicial Miscellaneous No.51 of 1990, decided on 27th January, 1991.
Presented By: Before Mamoon Kazi, J
Abdul Aziz Munshi for Petitioner.

ARK INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENTS Ltd.---Petitioner

VERSUS

JOINT REGISTRAR, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN CORPORATE LAW AUTHORITY COMPANY REGISTRATION OFFICE KARACHI---Respondent.

Law: Companies Ordinance, 1984

Section: 439

Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--- ----S.439 (6)---Name of Company from Register removed---Restoration of---Limitation---Name of company was removed in 1981 from Register of Companies maintained by Joint Registrar---Company filed in 1990 application for restoration of its name, but Joint Registrar took objection that same was time-barred as application was filed beyond the period of three years from removal of its name from Register---Action against company having been taken in period when Company Act, 1913 was in force which did not provide any period of limitation for filing such application, objection of Registrar was overruled and application for restoration of name of Company was granted accordingly. 1988 C L C 1538 ref. Abdul Aziz Munshi for Petitioner. ORDER The petitioner seeks restoration of the name of the Company to the Register of the Companies maintained by the Registrar, Joint Stock Companies. It may be pointed out that the name of the Company had been removed from the Register under section 247 of the Companies Act, 1913, vide order dated 31-7-1981 passed by the Registrar and published in the Gazette dated 23-9-1981. The main contention of Mr. Abdul Aziz Munshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the order had been passed by the learned Registrar without notice to the petitioner, as required by subsections (2), (3) and (5) of section 247 of the Companies Act, 1913. The learned counsel states that this factual position, as stated by the petitioner, is more or less admitted as the same has not been denied in the written-statement filed by Joint Registrar of the Companies, dated 25-9-1990. The learned counsel is right because without controverting the factual position, the only…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register