| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 688 2010 SLD 688 2010 CLD 1819 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No.B-17 of 2005 in C.M.As Nos.7889, 7441 and 7390 of 2005, decision dated: 21st September, 2010
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE
Mansoor Ghanghro for the Plaintiff. Mushtaq A. Memon for the Defendants 2 to 8. Qadir Bux Umrani, Official Assignee.
Suit No.B-17 of 2005 in C.M.As Nos.7889, 7441 and 7390 of 2005, decision dated: 21st September, 2010
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE
Mansoor Ghanghro for the Plaintiff. Mushtaq A. Memon for the Defendants 2 to 8. Qadir Bux Umrani, Official Assignee.
MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD. THROUGH ATTORNEYS AND 2 OTHERS
VS
MESSRS SCHON TEXTILE LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR AND 8 OTHERS
Law: Companies Ordinance, 1984
Section: 333
(a) Interpretation of statutes----Mandatory provision, ignoring of--Effect---If non-compliance of mandatory provision of statute is ignored, the same tantamount to transgress the express provision of law and is also against spirit of legislation---Statute is to be construed as to make it workable and any construction which defeat main scheme of law is to be avoided---Court is to interpret law as it stands and redundancy must not be attributed unnecessary to legislation. People's Industrial Bank Limited v. Ram Chandar Shukul and others AIR 1930 Allahabad 503 and Afshan Ahmed v. H.B.L. Limited and another 2002 CLD 137 ref. (b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--S.333--Official Liquidator--Duties and powers-Official Liquidator is official of court having definite powers conferred upon him under Companies Ordinance, 1984---Official Liquidator representing a company is in different position from anyone else against whom a stranger or third party makes a claim---Only duty of Official Liquidator is to consider and if he thinks fit as an admissible claim to admit and If he thinks it inadmissible claim to reject same-Powers of Official Liquidator are provided under S.333 of Companies Ordinance, 1984, with the sanction either of court or of committee of inspection including powers to institute or defend any suit, action, prosecution or other legal proceedings, civil or criminal in the name and on behalf of the company, to carry on business of the company so far as may be necessary of beneficial winding up thereof and to pay and classes of creditors in full. United Bank Limited v. Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation PLD 2002 SC 1100 and Knowles v. Scott (1981) 1 Ch. 717 at P.723 ref. (c) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss.9 & 10-Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.316--Suit for recovery of bank loan-Maintainability-Pendency of winding up proceedings-Bank filed suit for recovery of bank loan against defendant company, during pendency of its winding up proceedings, without prior leave of court under S.316 of Companies Ordinance, 1984-Validity-Purpose of creating a concept or provision of prior leave…
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