1985 PLP 925 (SCMR)
Mrs.DILSHAD HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT and INVESTMENT
| Citation | 1985 PLP 925 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mrs.DILSHAD HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT and INVESTMENT |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 925 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 925 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 925 (SCMR) (Mrs.DILSHAD HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT and INVESTMENT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
- Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1 (in C.P.247/1984).
- Date of hearing: 19th March, 1984.
- Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court with Mr. Walayat Umar Ch.,
- Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salahuddin,
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Companies Act (VII of 1913), Ss.175 & 176‑‑Winding‑up of company‑‑Remuneration of liquidator‑ ‑Leave to appeal granted to consider rule to govern High Court in fixing remuneration of liquidator. Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court with Mr. Walayat Umar Ch., Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salahuddin,
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑These petitions were put up in connection with Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.206 of 1984 in C.P.S.L.A. No.246 of 1984 and C.P.S.L.A. No.247 of 1984, but we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Raja Muhammad Akram on behalf of the Caveator in both the petitions for leave to appeal at length and propose, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, to proceed to dispose of the petitions for leave themselves, rather than to deal with the miscellaneous matters only. Leave is granted to consider the rule which should govern the High Court in fixing the remuneration to be allowed to a Liquidator, appointed by it for winding‑up and liquidating a Company, namely, whether this should be in the nature of a fixed commission on the sale of the assets of the Company in liquidation or he should be allowed a fixed salary or both; as also the principles on which the orders in this respect should be founded. The prayer for an interim order is rejected but the appeals shall be made ready on the present record and put up for hearing on a very early date. Furnishing of security is, however, dispensed with. The parties shall also file concise statements. S. Q. Leave granted