Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 795 1992 SLD 795 1992 CLC 1099
Sindh High Court
High Court Appeal No. 67 of 1991, decided on 8th October, 1991
SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C, J AND ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J
Ms. Rashida Patel for Appellant. Ghulam Murtaza for Aziz A. Munshi for
Respondent No. 1

STANDARD INVESTMENT (PVT.) LTD.

VS

ARK INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT LTD. and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Companies Act (VII of 1913)--- ----S. 247---Suit filed by A (a private limited company) against B---During pendency of suit A's name struck off from Register of Companies and thus making it not possible to pass any decree in suit---On A's approach Court, under S. 247; Companies Act, 1913 ordering restoration of A's name on Register of Companies---Aggrieved by order of Court B filing appeal to High Court---H 1 ; B's appeal was not competent; he was a stranger to proceedings before the Company Judge and mere fact that restoration of A's name on Register of Companies would enable Court to proceed with A's suit would not make B adversely affected by order of Company Judge. (b) Appeal (Civil)- ---- Stranger to a suit or proceeding when competent to file appeal. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Lahore v. Syed Saifuddin Shah PLD 1981 SC 565 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----Ss. 96 & 104---Appeal, locus standi to file---Stranger to a suit or proceeding when competent to file appeal. ORDER This appeal is filed against the order of the Company Judge dated 27­1-1991 passed under Section 247 of the Companies Act, 1913. When this appeal came-up before us on 29-4-1991 we enquired from the learned Counsel for the appellant as to how this appeal could be maintained by the appellant who is not only stranger to the proceedings but he is also not adversely affected by the impugned order in any manner. Learned counsel in reply contended that her client has been adversely affected by the impugned order in the sense that a suit was filed for specific performance of a contract of sale of immovable property by the respondent-Company which could not be decreed against the appellant on account of striking off the name of respondent from the Register of the Companies by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. However, as a result of restoration of name of the company by the impugned order, the respondent has become entitled to continue the case. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at length we are of the view that the appeal is not maintainable. It is an admitted position in the case that the suit for specific performance of contract of sale against…
🔒
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