Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 274 1992 SLD 274 1992 CLC 1658
Lahore High Court
C. Rev. No. 287 of 1992, heard on 13-04-1992. dates of hearing: 29th, 30th 31st March, 8th, 11th 12th and 13-04-1991
ABDUL MAJID TIWANA, JUSTICE
Umar Mahmood Kasuri for Petitioners. Dr. Shaukat Hussain for
Respondent. No. 1. Mian Munawar Hussain for
Respondent No. 2. Syed Iftikhar Ahmad for
Respondent No. 3.

MIAN EJAZ SIDDIQUE AND OTHERS

VS

MST. KANEEZ BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Companies Ordinance, 1984

Section: 7

(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)---S. 7---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9---Jurisdiction---Ouster of jurisdiction of ordinary Civil Court by provision of S.7, Companies Ordinance 1984---Extent---Civil Courts, being Courts of plenary jurisdiction, conferred on them by S.9, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, would retain jurisdiction even to deal with certain matters concerning affairs of companies being governed by Companies Ordinance, 1984, to the extent they were not specifically dealt with by that Ordinance or any matter in respect of which no specific order had been passed by Companies Judge being simultaneously seized of matter because under the maxim, "wherever there was wrong there was remedy", if neither Civil Court had passed any order with regard to affairs of a Company and no order in that respect was passed by Companies Judge seized of matter, such situation would create vacuum and even entail injustice. United Bank Ltd. v. Messrs Pak Wheat Products Ltd. PLD 1970 Lah. 235. rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 9---Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 7---Jurisdiction---Matter relating to affairs of company---Appellate Court exercising jurisdiction of Civil Court had jurisdiction to pass interim order relating to affairs of company but same would cease to operate no sooner than Companies Judge would pass any order in that regard, one way or the other, provided impugned order satisfied other prerequisites such as prima facie case, irreparability of loss and balance of convenience. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XLIII, R.3---Notice before presentation of appeal---Object and intent of---Failure on part of appellant to give such notice---Effect. The intention of the provisions of Order' 43, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was to make the opposite party aware of the move or proposed move of the party aggrieved of the interim order to file an appeal so that it should not suffer the shock of surprise and should be in a position to oppose the appeal at the limine stage and get it nipped in the bud. Failure on the part of the appellant to give such notice was not visited by any penal consequence and the aforesaid…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492