P L D 2000 Lahore 414 (PLP)
AYAZ DURRANI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CHAIRMAN, WAPDA and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2000 Lahore 414 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | AYAZ DURRANI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CHAIRMAN, WAPDA and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2000 Lahore 414 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2000 Lahore 414 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the 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: P L D 2000 Lahore 414 (PLP) (AYAZ DURRANI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CHAIRMAN, WAPDA and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imtiaz R. Siddiqui for Petitioners.
- Iqbal Mahmud Malik for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 5th April, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(7) & 196‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan ‑(1973), Art. 199‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Company incorporated under Companies Ordinance, 1984‑‑‑Status‑‑‑Detention of Chief Executive of a company for recovery of any liability of the company‑‑‑Contention was that liability was on the company incorporated and the Chief Executive had no personal liability‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Contention of petitioner was in accord with law‑‑‑Company incorporated under Companies Ordinance, 1984, was a separate and distinct juristic person quite apart from the Chief Executive, Director or shareholders‑‑‑Liability of such a company could not fall upon the Directors or the shareholders who had no personal liability for the same‑‑‑Action of recovering the disputed amount from the Chief Executive was without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑‑‑Petition was allowed accordingly. Tariq Saeed Saigol v. The District and Taxation Officer 1982 CLC 2387; Muhammad Anwar Khan Tiwana v. Mst. Sadeeqa Begum and 4 others PLD 1984 Lah. 411 and Shamim‑ud‑Din v. Federal Government of Pakistan through Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and 4 others 1995 CLC 299 ref.
Judgment & Decree
This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.10467/99, 1575/99 and 1363/2000 in which common question falls for determination.
2. The petitioner is stated to be Chief Executive of the Company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 by the name of Ayyaz Textile Mills Limited which had obtained electric connection. The petitioner was threatened with recovery of some amount through coercive measures. He consequently filed W.P. No. 10467 of 1999 which was admitted to regular hearing by this Court on 24‑9‑1995 and it was directed that no coercive measures shall be taken in the meanwhile. It is a matter of regret that the respondents instead of honouring the order passed by this Court flouted it by arresting the petitioner and forcing him to pay a sum of Rs.3,38,585 as a condition for his release. In, the second petition, this action of the respondents has been assailed.
3. The learned counsel has contended that in the present case, the consumer was the incorporated Company namely, Ayyaz Textile Mills Limited and the petitioner has no personal liability even though he may be Chief Executive of the Company.
4. This contention of the learned counsel is `in accord with law. It needs no gainsaying that a Company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 is a separate and distinct juristic person quite apart from its Chief Executive, Director or the shareholders. The liability of such a Company cannot fall upon the directors or the shareholders who have no personal responsibility for the same. This view is supported by Tariq Saeed Saigol v. The District and Taxation Officer 1982 CLC 2387; Muhammad Anwar Khan Tiwana v. Mst. Sadeeqa Begum and 4 others PLD 1984 Lah. 411 and Shamim‑ud‑Din v. Federal Government of Pakistan through Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and 4 others 1995 CLC
299. In view of what has been said above, these petitions are allowed and the action of the respondents in recovering the disputed amount from the petitioner is declared to be without any lawful authority and of no legal effect. No order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑48/L Petition allowed.