2016 PLP 1544 (CLD)
ASHRAF SUGAR MILLS — Appellant Versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (REGISTRATION) and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 1544 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ASHRAF SUGAR MILLS — Appellant Versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (REGISTRATION) and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 1544 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 1544 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 1544 (CLD) (ASHRAF SUGAR MILLS — Appellant Versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (REGISTRATION) and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court, Aftab Malik Saleem, Company Representative and Shehryar Kasuri for Appellant (through video conference).
- Muhammad Siddiqui, Executive Director (C&C) and Irfan Afzal, Deputy Registrar for Respondent No.1.
- Adil Bandial for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 261, 263 & 265
Power of Registrar of Companies to call for information or explanation
Investigation of affairs and other issues of the company
Registrar, sought information from the management of the brokerage company under S. 261 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, but management did not provide requisite information to the Registrar
Registrar reported the matter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and recommended appointment of Inspector to investigate the affairs of the company under S. 263(c) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984
Commission dissatisfied with the response of the company to show-cause notice issued to it under Ss.263 & 265 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, appointed Inspector to investigate the affairs of the company under Ss. 263 & 265 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984
Appeal was initiated in 2007, and after lapse of almost eight years, the matter was still pending
Parties were directed to finalize the terms of reference of the investigation within seven days of the order
Department was also directed to finalize the investigation by April 30, 2015.
Judgment & Decree
1. This order is in Appeal No. 12 of 2007 filed under section 33 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (the "Commission") Act, 1997 against the order (the "Impugned Order") dated 05/12/12 passed by the Respondent.
2. The facts leading to the case are that an application was filed by Mrs. Sumera Raza Ashraf (the "Applicant") before the Registrar, Company Registration Office (the "CRO"). The Registrar CRO, after perusal of the application sought information from the management of the Appellant under section 261 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 (the "Ordinance"). The management of the Appellant, however, did not provide the requisite information to the Registrar CRO, who reported the matter to the Commission and recommended appointment of inspector to investigate the affairs of the Appellant under section 263(c) of the Ordinance.
3. The Appellant was issued a show cause notice ("SCN") under sections 263 and 265 of the Ordinance to show cause as to why inspector may not be appointed to investigate the affairs of the Appellant. A reply to the SCN was filed and hearing in the matter was held. The Respondent, dissatisfied with the response of the Appellant, passed the Impugned Order and appointed an inspector to investigate the affairs of the Appellant under sections 263 and 265 of the Ordinance.
4. Subsequently the Appellants agreed for investigation in the affairs of the Company i.e. Ashraf Sugar Mills. However they had concerns on the Terms of Reference of the investigation.
5. We have heard the parties. This appeal was initiated in 2007 and after lapse of almost eight years, the matter is still pending. The parties are directed to finalize the terms of reference of the investigation within seven days of this order. We also direct the department to finalize the investigation latest by April 30, 2015.
6. The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. HBT/65/SEC Order accordingly.