2005 PLP 659 (CLD)
ZAFAR MAHMOOD SHAIKH — Petitioner Versus Messrs AHMED FOOD INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 659 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAFAR MAHMOOD SHAIKH — Petitioner Versus Messrs AHMED FOOD INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 659 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 659 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 659 (CLD) (ZAFAR MAHMOOD SHAIKH — Petitioner Versus Messrs AHMED FOOD INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shabbir Ahmed Shaikh for Petitioner.
- Saalim Salam Ansari for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 305, 306 & 309
Petition for winding up of Company
Contention of the petitioner was that he had been exposed to financial liability on account of default by the company, therefore, in terms of S. 305 read with S.309 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 he was contingent creditor and entitled to seek winding up of the company to set off the liability to which he might be exposed
Held, in terms of S. 309(d), Companies Ordinance, 1984, contingent creditor, to maintain such petition, was required to furnish security under S. 309(d) of the Ordinance
Petitioner, in circumstances, was directed in the first instance to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 25,000 to the satisfaction of the Nazir of High Court within two weeks.
Judgment & Decree
Admittedly the petition has been filed by the petitioner who stood guarantor for the respondent for repayment of the loan and it appears that the creditors claim has been decreed by the Banking Court and the petitioner s property has been exposed to auction pursuant to a decree passed against the respondent and petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is exposed to financial liability on account of default of the respondent therefore, in terms of section 305 read with section 309 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 is contingent creditors and entitled to seek winding up of the respondent to set off the liability to which petitioner may be exposed. In terms of section 309(d) ibid contingent creditors, to maintain such petition, is required to furnish security under section 309(d) learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to case reported Ehsanullah Tarar v. Messrs Hafizabad Straw Board Mills Ltd. and 3 others PLD 1994 Lahore 160, wherein the contingent petitioner was required to furnish security in the sum of Rs.20,
000. Under circumstances, let in the first instance petitioner furnish security in the sum of Rs.25,000 to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court within two weeks, whereafter this petition be fixed for hearing of the main petition before a regular Bench. M.B.A./Z-19/K Order accordingly.