| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 771 2003 SLD 771 2003 CLD 621 2003 PTCL 434 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 2813 of 2001, decision dated: 18-11-2002
QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, JUSTICE YED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JUSTICE ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE
Irfan Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. M. Hamid Farooq Durrani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate on-Record for
Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 2813 of 2001, decision dated: 18-11-2002
QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, JUSTICE YED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JUSTICE ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE
Irfan Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. M. Hamid Farooq Durrani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate on-Record for
Respondents
DIAMOND INDUSTRIES LIMITED
VS
M. ZAFAR UL HAQ HIJAZI and 2 others
Law: Companies Ordinance, 1984
Section: 265,10
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
Law: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)
Section: 33
Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--Ss. 265 & 10 Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33 Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance (X of 1980), S.15 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) Investigation of company's affairs Notice was issued to the company under S.265 Companies Ordinance, 1984 to show cause as to why Inspector should not be appointed to investigate the affair: of the company on various grounds including non payment of return to the shareholders, uncalled for heave expenditures, deviations from Memorandum of Association etc. Company assailed the said notice in appeal before the Appellate Bench of the Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan which was rejected but subsequently maintained by the Company Judge of High Court Petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court Maintainability All orders passed under S.10(2) of the Companies Ordinance 1984, in exercise of original civil jurisdiction of the High Court as per provisions of S.15, Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 were appealable before a Division Bench of the High Court Order in the present case, being an interlocutory in nature was governed by S.15, Code of Civil. Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 against which an intra Court appeal before a Division Bench was the only remedy Petition for leave to appeal being not maintainable was dismissed and leave refused by the Supreme Court. Brother Steel Mills Ltd. and others v. Mian Ilyas Miraj and 14 others PLD 1996 SC 543 ref. JUDGMENT ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J. Petitioner Diamond Industries. Limited seeks leave to appeal against the judgment; dated 11 6 2001 passed in Company Case No. 13 of 2000 by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby the same was dismissed. 2. The facts relevant for filing the instant petition are that the petitioner company was issued a show cause notice on 11 9 1999 by the Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (hereinafter referred 'to as the Commission) through its Commissioner Enforcement (ENF) as to why Inspector should not be appointed to investigate the affairs and the management of the Company as required under…
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