| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 724 2002 SLD 724 2002 CLD 1366 |
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan
Appeals Nos. 17 and 23 of 2001, decision dated: 25-04-2002, hearing DATE : 18-04-2002
SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET) N.K. SHAHANI, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY)
Munir A. Malik and Yawar Farooqi for Appellants Nos.2 and 3. Mubashir Saeed Saddozai, Deputy Director (E&M) for Commission. Abid Aziz Shaikh for
Respondent No. 1.
Appeals Nos. 17 and 23 of 2001, decision dated: 25-04-2002, hearing DATE : 18-04-2002
SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET) N.K. SHAHANI, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY)
Munir A. Malik and Yawar Farooqi for Appellants Nos.2 and 3. Mubashir Saeed Saddozai, Deputy Director (E&M) for Commission. Abid Aziz Shaikh for
Respondent No. 1.
Messrs GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED and 2 others
VS
BIBOJEE SERVICES (PVT.) LIMITED and another
Law: Companies Ordinance, 1984
Section: 263
Law: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)
Section: 29,33
(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)---S.263 Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), Ss. 29 & 33 Appeal before Appellate Bench of the Commission Investigation of company's affairs Jurisdiction of the Commission Scope Inspector appointed at respondent's request had filed his report with the Commission Signing of Memorandum of Understanding between parties after filing of appeals against order of appointment of Inspector agreeing to withdraw different inquiries including complaint filed under S.263 of Companies Ordinance. 1984 Effect Even after withdrawal of complaint, the report which had now been finalized had a prima facie value of an evidence under law Commission had powers to take cognizance of the irregularity or contravention pointed therein independent of any complaint. (b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) S.263 Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33 Appeal before Appellate Bench of the Commission Investigation of company's affairs ¬Appointment of Inspector at respondent's request ¬Contention of appellants was that Executive Director of the Commission had not provided them an opportunity of hearing before passing such order Validity Subsequent events arising after appointment of Inspector were generally not to be taken into account Appellate Bench of the Commission found merit in appellants' contention that motive of filing complaint seemed otherwise than to really getting the investigation done by the Commission Taking over the management by majority of shareholders, though it be financial institution, was not prohibited under Companies Ordinance, 1984 Nothing barred the Executive Director of the Commission to take into account Government policies while passing an order for investigation in evaluating the conduct of parties Appellate Bench of the Commission did not consider it necessary to go into details of each and every ground for appointment of Inspector Though there were reasons which could require inquiry into the affairs of appellants' companies, but the decision should have been taken only after giving full hearing to major shareholders being concerned parties in the matter…
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