Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 604 2010 SLD 604 2010 CLD 963
Sindh High Court
Suit No.867 and C.M.A. No.5641 of 2010, decision dated: 7-07-2010
MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Mian Mushtaq Ahmed for Plaintiff. Agha Zafar Ahmad for Defendants Nos. 1 to 14. Ms. Samia Faiz Durrani for Defendant No. 16.

MST SAKINA KHATOON AND 6 OTHERS

VS

S.S. NAZIR AHSAN AND 17 OTHERS

Law: Companies Ordinance, 1984

Section: 209

(a) Companies Ordinance (LXVII of 1984)--S.209---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration---Interim injunction, grant of---Necessary ingredients---Prima facie case---Scope---Assets and properties of company---Ownership---Suit property was owned by defendant company and plaintiffs claimed to be owners of the same on the ground that their predecessor-in-interest held majority shareholding in the company---Validity---Company was separate legal entity and its assets and properties belonged to it and not to its shareholders---What deceased held and owned in company was the shareholding that stood in his name and the same did not mean that he owned assets of the company including property in question---Plaintiff could not lay claim to the shareholding of deceased in the company---Plaintiffs did not have any right or interest in any of the assets of the company including suit property---For a plaintiff to successfully maintain application for interim injunctive relief, all three ingredients necessary for such relief must be found to exist in plaintiffs favour---Plaintiff must firstly establish a prima fade case and the same must always be examined in the context of the application under consideration---Plaintiff must show that he had a prima fade case for the grant of relief that he was seeking---Property in question was the only income generating asset of the company and it was not the plaintiff but the company which might suffer irreparable loss and injury, if the application was allowed since that would in effect deprive the company of its sole source of income--Plaintiffs were not entitled to interim relief---Application was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Taj v. Arshad Mehmood 2009 SCMR 114 and Jamil Akhtar and others v. Las Baba and others PLD 2003 SC 494 ref. (b) Companies Ordinance (LXVII of 1984)--- ----S.290---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXIX, R.10-Suit by or against company-Mismanagement--Minority shareholders, protection of rights---Procedure---If a company was in the control of majority shareholders who were abusing their position (e.g.) by defrauding…
🔒
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