Case Details

Citation(s)
1997 SLD 716 = 1997 CLC 970
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 343 of 1995, decided on 19th February, 1995.
Presented By: Before Ahmad Saeed Awan, J
Mian Saqib Nisar for Petitioner. Syed Shabbar Raza, Add1.A.-G. for
Respondents.

Ch. MUHAMMAD AZAM CHEEMA---Petitioner

VERSUS

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others---Respondents

Law: Companies Ordinance, 1984

Section: 7 , 42 , 290

  Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--- ----Ss. 7, 42 & 290---Entitlement to privileges applicable to company--- Jurisdiction---Company which had been formed for promoting social services or any other useful object, was entitled to the privileges applicable to company made under S.42(1) of Companies Ordinance, 1984---If any member of a company had complained or Registrar was of the opinion that affairs of Company were being conducted in an unlawful or fraudulent manner or in a manner not provided for in its memorandum, an application could be made to Court for an order under S.290 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 and jurisdiction to entertain such application, was only vested in High Court under S.7 of Companies Ordinance, 1984. Salah-ud-Din and 2 others v. Frontier Sugar Distillery Mills Ltd., Takht Bhai and 10 others PLD 1975 SC 244 ref. Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art.  199---Constitutional  jurisdiction---Exercise of---Conduct of petitioner-- High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction, would not exercise its powers in favour of persons who came to Court with soiled hands. Abdul Salam Qureshi and another v. Judge, Special Court of Banking for Sindh and another PLD 1984 Kar. 462; Sardar Aseff Ahmed Ali v. Muhammad Khan Junejo and others  PLD  1986  Lah.  310;  Kamal  Hussain  v.   Siraj-ul-Islam PLD 1969 SC 42 and S.K. Masood and 3 others v. Special Committee through M.B.R. and others 1990 CLC 1174 ref. Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--- ----Ss. 42 & 290---Mismanagement of duly nominated Executive Committee-- Effect---Executive Committee duly nominated through Notification, having failed to fulfil mandate provided through terms of reference and having made amendments in Articles of Association without approval of Government which was mandatory in their own interest, Government, in circumstances, was justified to interfere in affairs of Association in the best interest of public. PLD 1984 Kar. 462 and Khadim Hussain v. Board of Revenue and others 1973 SCMR 127 ref. De facto, doctrine of--- ----De facto doctrine is doctrine of necessity to bring about regularity and prevent confusion…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register