2006 PLP 437 (SCMR)
Messrs A.M. INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED — Petitioner Versus AIJAZ MEHMOOD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 437 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs A.M. INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED — Petitioner Versus AIJAZ MEHMOOD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 437 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 437 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 437 (SCMR) (Messrs A.M. INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED — Petitioner Versus AIJAZ MEHMOOD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Younus, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Suleman Habibullah, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 20th June, 2005.
- 3. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Younus, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Mr. Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court who has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.1.
- 4. Mr. Muhammad Younus learned Advocate Supreme Court was obliged to concede that the name of the company was struck off the Register of Companies by the competent authority vide order, dated 11-10-1979 but he vehemently contended that proceedings for restoration of the company were sub judice before the Sindh High Court in Judicial Miscellaneous No.12 of 1997 culminating in a favourable order vide judgment, dated 30-9-1998.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 15 & 21
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l85(3)
Ejectment application, - dismissal of-Appellate authority dismissed ejectment application of petitioner-company on sole ground that person who signed the ejectment application was not authorized by petitioner-company through a resolution of Board of Directors nor any Power of Attorney was executed in his favour for institution of ejectment proceedings
Appellate Authority also found that name of petitioner-company had been struck off the Register of Companies by , Registrar, Joint Stock Companies
In absence of existence of a company lawfully registered, Appellate Authority had non-suited petitioner-company and dismissed ejectment application
Petitioner's constitutional petition against said order of Appellate Authority was also dismissed by High Court
Person, who instituted ejectment proceedings on behalf of the company being not duly authorized, no legal defect or error of jurisdiction was found in the view taken by High Court, which was not open to any exception
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. Habib Bank Ltd. v. Zelins Limited 2000 SCMR 472 and Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot v. Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd. PLD 1971 SC 550 ref.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioner-company seeks leave to appeal against Sindh High Court order, dated 28-4-2003 dismissing his Constitutional Petition No.S-558 of 2002 calling into question the judgment passed by respondent No.3 i.e. learned District Judge, Karachi-Central dismissing the ejectment application brought by the petitioner against respondent No.1.
2. Sole ground which weighed with the appellate authority under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the order of ejectment appears to be that the person who, signed the ejectment application was not authorized by the Company through a resolution of the Board of Directors nor was any power of attorney executed in his favour for institution of eviction proceedings against the respondent. Learned appellate authority found that name of the petitioner-company had been struck off the Register of Companies by the Registrar Joint Stock Companies way back in 1979. In the absence of existence of a company lawfully registered, learned District Judge upon the principle of law laid down in Habib Bank Ltd. v. Zelins Limited 2000 SCMR 472, non-suited the petitioner and dismissed the ejectment application. Petitioner's constitutional petition against the said order met the same fate in the High Court, hence this petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Younus, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Mr. Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court who has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.1.
4. Mr. Muhammad Younus learned Advocate Supreme Court was obliged to concede that the name of the company was struck off the Register of Companies by the competent authority vide order, dated 11-10-1979 but he vehemently contended that proceedings for restoration of the company were sub judice before the Sindh High Court in Judicial Miscellaneous No.12 of 1997 culminating in a favourable order vide judgment, dated 30-9-1998.
5. Be that' as it may, since legal position is well-settled and the person who instituted ejectment proceedings on behalf of company was not duly authorized, following the principle of law laid down in Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot v. Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd. B PLD 1971 SC 550 and Habib Bank Ltd. (supra), we find no legal defect or error of jurisdiction in the view taken by the High Court, which is not open to any exception.
6. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, no ground for grant of leave is made out with the result that this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./A-194/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.