2014 PLP 415 (CLD)
TELECARD LIMITED through Authorized representative — Appellant Versus PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION AUTHORITY through Chairman — Respondent
| Citation | 2014 PLP 415 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | TELECARD LIMITED through Authorized representative — Appellant Versus PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION AUTHORITY through Chairman — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act (XVII of 1996) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 415 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act (XVII of 1996) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 415 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 415 (CLD) (TELECARD LIMITED through Authorized representative — Appellant Versus PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION AUTHORITY through Chairman — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad M. Tayebaly, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 7
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(2)
Appeal filed by Telecommunication Company
Appellant was a limited company, and appeal on its behalf under S.7 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization), 1996, had been filed by a person not having authority under Articles of Association or a Board Resolution of the company
Held, that a lis could not be initiated on behalf of a company, which was a juristic person, without having due authority either in terms of its Articles of Association, or the Board Resolution; which were conspicuously missing in the present case
Appellant had not even appended any document to establish that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Company, who had allegedly signed the memo of the appeal, had authority to do so
Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The appeal filed by the appellant under the provisions of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996 has been dismissed by the learned High Court on the ground that the same has not been filed by an authorized person; admittedly the appellant is a limited company and the appeal has not been filed by someone having due authority under the articles of association of the company authorization by the board resolution. It is a settled law that a lis cannot be initiated on behalf of the company which is a juristic person, without having due authority either in terms of the articles of association or by the board resolution. This is conspicuously missing in the present case. The appellant has not even appended herewith any document to establish that the CEO of the company, who allegedly signed the memo of appeal, had the authority.
2. In light of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal calling for interference by this Court in the instant jurisdiction. Dismissed accordingly. KMZ/T-1/SC Appeal dismissed.