Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 390 2005 SLD 390 2005 CLD 1330
Sindh High Court
High Court Appeals Nos.6 and 10 of 2001, decision dated: 24-02-2005. dates of hearing: 8-10-5th and 24-11-2004
ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE S.AII ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE
Abul Inam and Ain-ud-Din Khan for Appellant. Arif Khan for
Respondent No. 1. Muzaffar Imam for
Respondent No. 2.

DR. S.M. RAB

VS

NATIONAL REFINERY LTD.

Law: Companies Ordinance, 1984

Section: 32

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. XLI, R. 27 & S. 151---Production of additional evidence---High Court, in the interest of justice and all the parties concerned allowed applications for production of additional evidence so that documents now placed on record may he taken into consideration by High Court to record just and equitable conclusion in respect of controversy involved in the appeals. Messrs Muhammad Siddiq Muhammad Umar and another v. The Australasia Bank Limited PLD 1966 SC 684 and Zar Wali Shah v. Yousaf Ali Shah 1992 SCMR 1778 fol. (b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--S. 32---Suit by company---Authority to sue---Plaint in the suit filed on behalf of the Company was signed by its Assistant Manager Legal and it was nowhere mentioned in the plaint that how and in what manner Assistant Manager was legally authorised on behalf of the Company without a proper Board Resolution for the purpose---Plaint was however appended with an authority from the Managing Director of the Company to file suit bu the Assistant Manager Legal which again had nowhere disclosed/mentioned as to how the Managing Director of the Company could exercise power of delegation of authority on behalf of the Company, unless he was so empowered by the Articles of Association of the Company or there was some Board Resolution in his favour for the purpose with farther power of delegation of powers on behalf of the Company---Non-conferring of proper authority on behalf of the Company through Board Resolution in favour of the Assistant Manager legal who had instituted the suit on behalf of the Company, in circumstances, would result in incompetence of suit and thus same was not maintainable. Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Limited, Lahore PLD 1971 SC 550 ref. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Suit for declaration, possession, mesne profits and damages---Plaintiff had claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs.30,000 per month from the defendant-Company for their unauthorized occupation of suit plot---Such statement of the plaintiff though remained undisputed in cross-examination and further no evidence had been adduced by…
🔒
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