| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1995 SLG 946 1995 SLD 946 1995 PLD 264 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Original No. 128 of 1994, decided on 1st March, 1995.dates of hearing: 16th, 17th, 24th, 29th January; 1st, 7th,14th, 15th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd February, 1995.
MUNIR A. SHAIKH, J
Umar Ata Bandial with Mueen Qamar, Azid Nafees and Imran Anjum Alvi for Petitioners. Raja Muhammad Akram for
Respondent. Ata Muhammad, Joint Registrar C.L.A. for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Jawad S. Khawaja for
Respondents
Civil Original No. 128 of 1994, decided on 1st March, 1995.dates of hearing: 16th, 17th, 24th, 29th January; 1st, 7th,14th, 15th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd February, 1995.
MUNIR A. SHAIKH, J
Umar Ata Bandial with Mueen Qamar, Azid Nafees and Imran Anjum Alvi for Petitioners. Raja Muhammad Akram for
Respondent. Ata Muhammad, Joint Registrar C.L.A. for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Jawad S. Khawaja for
Respondents
M. SHAHID SAIGOL and 16 othersvsM/s. KOHINOOR MILLS LTD. and 7 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Administration of justice-- ---- Rules of procedure should not be used as stumbling block and in case substantial compliance of such rules was shown to have been made the lis should be decided on merits. Imtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali and another PLD 1963 SC 382; Messrs Nishat Mills Limited v. Superintendent of Central Excises, Circle 11 and 3 others PLD 1989 SC 222 and Mrs. Dino Manekji Chinoy and 8 others v. Muhammad Matin PLD 1993 SC 693 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---0. XXXli, Rr. 1 & 2---Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984;, Ss.161(8). 208, 217 & 290---Petition under Ss.161(8), 208, 2 1 7 & 290 of the Companie. Ordinance, 1984 was filed on behalf of minors under the written authority of next friend of the minors who was their father---Title of the petition did not disclose that the petitioners were minors---Validity---Held, since the petition had been tiled under the authority of their father who was their natural guardian, substantial compliance with the provisions of O.XXXII, C.P.C. had been made--Next friend for filing petition is not required to be appointed by Court---Person filing the petition as next friend would continue to be treated to be his next friend during the proceedings unless it was clearly shown that he was disqualified to act as such on account of his interest being in conflict with the interest of minors ---Guardian-at-litem of the defendant however had to he appointed by the Court itself. Kameen Khan and others -, Ghazi Marjan and others 1990 MLD 1865 and Abdul Hayee v. Muhammad Salah-ud-Din PLD 1967 Kar. 424 ref. (c2 Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--- ----Ss. 217, 214, 215 & 216---Declaring a Director to be lacking fiduciary behaviour---Exceptions---Such declaration can only be made if any Director or Directors contravene the provisions of S.214 or S.215(1) or S.216 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. It was contended that since five Directors of respondents Company who were also Directors in the other Company had personal interest to secure their Directorship in the latter company by purchasing the right shares offered by that company, they had become personally interested in the said arrangement…
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