1993 PLP 1222 (CLC)
A. REHMAN ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus TEHSILDAR LAHORE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1222 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | A. REHMAN ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus TEHSILDAR LAHORE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Companies Act (VII of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1222 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Companies Act (VII of 1913)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1222 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1222 (CLC) (A. REHMAN ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus TEHSILDAR LAHORE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mushtaq Raj for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th June, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 2(2)‑‑‑Company is a distinct entity separate from share‑holders and Directors and liability of company cannot be passed on to its Directors personally‑‑‑While determining that the amount in question was due and payable by petitioner who otherwise being Managing Director had no personal liability to make such payment, . no opportunity was granted to him of being heard‑‑‑Proceedings for recovery against petitioner were not sustainable.
Judgment & Decree
Mushtaq Raj for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 9th June, 1991. The petitioner claims to be the Managing Director of Progressive Journalists Ltd. a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913. It appears that M/s. Associated Press of Pakistan respondent No.2 herein approached Tehsildar Lahore respondent No.1for the recovery of Rs.9023 from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue, This demand has been challenged by the petitioner by filing this Constitutional petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.
3. Relying on the certificate of incorporation, Annexure `A' to this petition it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that M/s. Progressive Journalists Ltd. from whom the money is allegedly due is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913 and the petitioner even though its Managing Director has no personal liability. The respondent has not filed any written statement disputing these assertions. It needs no gainsaying that in law a company is a distinct entity separate from its share‑holders and the Directors and the liability of the company cannot be passed on to its Directors personally.
4. The other contention of the learned counsel is equally well‑founded. It is apparent on the face of the record that while determining that the amount in question is due and payable by the petitioner, no opportunity to the petitioner of being heard was granted by the respondents. For this reason also the proceedings for recovery are not sustainable. For the reasons aforesaid this petition is allowed without any order as to costs. . H.B.T./A‑1387/L Petition allowed.