| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 381 2006 SLD 381 2006 CLD 776 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.1071 of 2005 along with Civil Appeal No.1325 of 2005, decision dated: 15-02-2006
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JUSTICE MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JUSTICE
Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in C.A. No. 1071 of 2005). Nemo for
Respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 1071 of 2005). M. Ikram Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 1071 of 2005). Fakhr-ud-Din
Civil Appeal No.1071 of 2005 along with Civil Appeal No.1325 of 2005, decision dated: 15-02-2006
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JUSTICE MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JUSTICE
Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in C.A. No. 1071 of 2005). Nemo for
Respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 1071 of 2005). M. Ikram Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 1071 of 2005). Fakhr-ud-Din
IBRAHIM SHAMSI AND ANOTHER
VS
BASHIR AHMED MEMON AND OTHERS
Law: Companies Ordinance, 1984
Section: 305
Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--Ss. 305, 309 & 311---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.92---Winding up of company---Liquidation proceedings---Acceptance of highest bid---Company under liquidation was put to sale through sealed bids received in High Court---Matter went up to Supreme Court and in post remand proceedings, High Court directed to hold fresh bid---Appellant was the highest bidder in post remand bidding but after receipt of his bid, High Court received bid of respondent which was higher than that of the appellant---High Court called the appellant to match the bid and on his failure to do so, bid offered by respondent was accepted---Validity---High Court instead of deciding the dispute in terms of the of Supreme Court confirmed the auction in favour of respondent, who entered in the competition at a later stage and offered matching bid with a nominal margin---With the consent of parties, order passed by High Court accepting the bid of respondent was set aside---Matter was remanded to High Court for decision of references, along with the objections and miscellaneous applications afresh in the light of observation contained in the earlier of Supreme Court in the present case---Appeal was allowed accordingly. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---These direct appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 3-8-2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in a matter arising out of proceedings under sections 305, 309 and 311 of Companies Ordinance, 1984. The order passed by the learned Company Judge in the High Court, was challenged before this Court in C.P. No.319-K of 2005, which was converted into an appeal and case was remanded to the High Court for fresh decision of the References Nos.2 and 3 of 2005 along with the objections and miscellaneous applications of the parties. The learned Judge in the High Court in post-remand proceeding vide order dated 11-7-2005, directed for holding fresh bid and this order was also assailed before this Court in Civil Appeal No.781 of 2005 but pending disposal of the appeal, fresh bid was received, therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed because…
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