Case Details

Citation(s)
1995 SLG 448 1995 SLD 448 1995 PLD 41
Quetta High Court
High Court Appeal No.l of 1992, decision dated: 25-08-1994, hearing DATE : 25-05-1994
AMIR-UL-MULK MENGAL, JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE
A.I. Chundrigar and Muhammad Riaz Ahmed for Appellants. Basharatullah for
Respondent.

M/S. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS

VS

M/S. KAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD.

Law: Companies Ordinance, 1984

Section: 10

(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--S. 10----Appeal against, any order, decision or of Court under Companies Ordinance, 1984---Such appeal would lie to Supreme Court where company ordered to be wound up had paid-up share of not less than one million rupees; and where company ordered to be wound up had a paid-up capital of not less than one million rupees; and where the company ordered to be wound up had no share capital such appeal would lie only if Supreme court; had granted leave to appeal---Provision of S.10(2) Companies Ordinance, 1984 postulates that appeal from any order made or decision given by Court would lie in the same manner in which and subject to the same conditions under which appeals lie from any order or decision of Court---Court would mean Court having jurisdiction under Companies Ordinance 1984. 1993 SCMR 80 and PLD 1991 Lah. 467 ref. (b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--- ----S.10---Appeal against of Company Judge where he had not passed winding up order but had dismissed application for winding up of company---Where Court had not passed winding up order but had dismissed petition for winding up, then provision of S.10(2) Companies Ordinance would be attracted -and appeal would lie before Supreme Court and not before Division Bench of High Court. (c) Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)--- ----S.3---Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.10---Order of Company Judge ---Intra-Court Appeal---Competence---Appeal to a Bench of two or more Judges---Such appeal has been provided against a decree passed or final order made in exercise of original civil jurisdiction---Jurisdiction under Companies Ordinance, 1984, being not original civil jurisdiction but under a special statute, therefore, ex facie, appeal was not competent against order of Company Judge exercising powers under Companies Ordinance, 1984 before a Division Bench. PLD 1988 Pesh. 19 and PLD 1980 Lah. 69 rel. (d) Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)--- ----S.3---Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.10(2)---Appeal to High Court---Appeal would lie to a Bench of two or more Judges against an interlocutory order made by a Single Bench of High Court---Such appeal, however, would not…
🔒
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