1990 PLP 394 (SCMR)

Rana MA. Qadir, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th June, 1989. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the dismissal of the Intra‑Court Appeal fled by Begum Anwar Sultana (now dead and represented by her legal heirs) by the Lahore High Court. Petitioner Begum Anwar Sultana (now dead and represented by her legal heirs) submitted an application on 8‑7‑1980 for winding up of the Company and appointment of a Liquidator. Consequently, a Liquidator was appointed on 26‑11‑1980 for the purpose. The Income‑tax Recovery Officer initiated recovery proceedings against M/s A.B.M. Associates, respondents herein, as a; result of which a proclamation was made in the press on 2‑4‑1980 for the sale of Muslim Ginning Factory which fell into the share of Begum Anwar Sultana and on 15‑9‑1980 tenders were invited for the sale of the said factory. Two persons offered their tenders out of whom one was an old lessee of the concern and the other was his son i.e. respondent No. 6 herein and ultimately, the said factory worth Rs. 70 lacs was sold away in favour of the respondent No. 6 only for a sale consideration of Rs. 10 lacs. Begum Anwar Sultana moved a petition for stopping the Tax Recovery proceedings and the respondent No.6 also filed an application claiming the protection of the sale of the factory in his favour by the Tax Recovery Officer, under the Companies Act. The stay application of the petitioner was rejected on 16‑7‑1980: On 26‑11‑1980, the learned Judge seized the winding up matter, appointed the Official Liquidator and directed him to take charge of all the assets of the factory with an immediate effect. Respondent No.6 moved an application under section 183(5) of the Companies Act for quashment of the said notice on the plea that the assets of the Muslim Ginning Factory no more belonged to A.B.M. Associates Limited as he has lawfully purchased it. Begum Anwar Sultana also filed application for setting aside the sale of the said factory in favour of the respondent No.

6. A learned Single Judge who heard both the matters accepted the application of respondent No: 6 and rejected that of the petitioner. The petitioner then filed Intra‑Court Appeal in the Lahore High Court which was also dismissed by a Division Bench, vide impugned judgment. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we consider it a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal to examine whether the learned High Court has correctly adjudicated the matter involved in this petition. Security is Rs. 5,

000. Limited stay already granted on 12‑2‑1986 is to continue. Appeal is to be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to add necessary documents, if any. A.A./A‑584/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Leave granted.