2005 PLP 558 (CLD)

4. The Chief Financial Officer of the Company and a Chartered Accountant of Messrs Zahid Jameel and Company were produced before this Court today, who on solemn affirmation made the following statement:‑‑ "Statement of Mr. Yasir Sajjad. Chartered Accountant of Zahid Jamil & Co., on oath; "I deal with the accounts of the respondent- Company. I have seen the agreements, about which mention has been made yesterday. We were not required to prepare financial statements as auditors. We were only required to scrutinize the statements prepared by the Management, whose representative is also before this Court. As an Auditor, therefore, I am not aware whether what may have happened in reality, but in papers and Account Books the two agreements (not the agreement of 21st July. 2001) about which reference is made, appear to have been implemented "

5. Whereas the statement of Mr. Aamir Mushtaq Butt, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company was as follows:‑‑ Statement of Mr. Aamir Mushtaq Butt. Chief Financial Officer of the Company, on oath; "As a Chief Financial Officer of the Company. I am conversant with the accounts and Account Books and about factual positions relating to the financial statements. I can say unequivocally that the statement dated 8th July, 2000, and agreement which is undated and was signed in July. 2000 have been given effect to both in papers and otherwise and the assets distribution has taken place accordingly inter se the share-holders Directors of the Company. I may once again add, what I am stating is true and nothing has been suppressed."

6. Therefore, according to the statements of the Chartered Accountant and the Chief Financial Officer the assets as shown distributed by the aforementioned two documents had in fact been distributed and as is evident from their statements the petitioner received what was due B to him on the basis of the aforementioned two documents.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner's side stated that after the petitioner had sold his assets he asked for the return of the loan which he had given to the Company.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Company stated that there was no loan outside the ambit of the settlement, dated the 8th of July. 2000 and that the loan stands settled completely. In this connection, he made reference to the affidavit of Mian Muhammad Khurshid Mannoo who was one of the signatories to the deed of the 8th of July, 2000 and according to whom the settlement covered everything including any loan which may, have been given by the petitioner. Reference has also been made to an affidavit of Mian Jehangir Mannoo who it is said was an elder of the family.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner even after hearing all this insists that his loan remained unpaid. If what he was saying, is correct then this calls for a detailed and elaborate factual inquiry through production of evidence in the usual way which may controvert what has been stated before this Court.

10. Because obviously the parties did enter into a settlement. When there has been a subsequent agreement in which senior members of the family participated for resolution of the dispute then it no longer remains a matter simplicitor under the provisions of section 305(e) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.

11. Whereas under the jurisdiction of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, we are governed by section 9 which reads as follows:‑‑ "

9. Procedure of the Court:‑‑‑ (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, all matters coming before the Court under this Ordinance shall be disposed of and the judgment pronounced, as expeditiously as possible but not later than ninety days from the date of presentation of the petition or application to the Court and except in extraordinary circumstances arid on grounds to be recorded, the Court shall hear the case from day to day. Explanation:‑‑‑In this subsection, "judgment" means a final judgment recorded in writing. (2) The hearing of the matters referred to in subsection (1) shall not be adjourned except for sufficient cause to be recorded or for more than fourteen days at any one time or for more than thirty days in all. (3) In the exercise of its jurisdiction as aforesaid, the Court shall, in all matters before it, follow the summary procedure."

12. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed his reliance on the following case‑law:‑‑ Abdur Rasheed v. Messrs Nippon Robbin Company Pakistan Ltd. and 6 others PLD 1982 Lah. 103; Hashmi Can Company Limited v. K.K. & Co. (Private) Limited 1992 SCMR 1006; Messrs Adage Advertising Lahore v. Messrs Shezan International Ltd., Lahore 1970 SCMR 184; Habib Bank Ltd. v. Hamza Board Mills and others PLD 1996 Lahore 633.

13. Consequently, so far as the petition under the Companies jurisdiction is concerned, on the basis of what 'was prayed in the relief part of the petition cannot proceed any further. However, for pressing his relief the learned counsel may have to find the remedy under the general law.

14. Under the circumstances, in view of the dispute inter se the same family there is no order as to costs. M.B.A./A‑368/L Order accordingly.