2019 PLP 1372 (CLD)
PAKISTAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Versus COMMISSIONER (COMPANY LAW DIVISION) CORPORATIZATION AND COMPANIES DEPARTMENT, SECP — Respondent
| Citation | 2019 PLP 1372 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PAKISTAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Versus COMMISSIONER (COMPANY LAW DIVISION) CORPORATIZATION AND COMPANIES DEPARTMENT, SECP — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1372 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 1372 (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: 2019 PLP 1372 (CLD) (PAKISTAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Versus COMMISSIONER (COMPANY LAW DIVISION) CORPORATIZATION AND COMPANIES DEPARTMENT, SECP — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jawed Hussain, Executive Director (CLD-CCD), Sidney Custodio Pereira, Additional Registrar (CLD-CCD), Sumaira Siddiqui, Additional Director (CLD-CCD), Abdul Qayyum, Joint Director (CLD-CCD) and Abdul Rehman Khan Tareen, Deputy Director (CLD-CCD) for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 33
Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 506(2)
Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, Rr. 24 & 25
Penalty for contravention of Rules
Scope
Fine was imposed for not publishing, circulating and filing the Statement of Compliance (SOC) and Review Report with the Securities and Exchange Commission
Appellant company contended that non-compliance of Rules was on account of uncertainty regarding its future of the company as National Accountability Bureau had taken its record into custody
Appellate Bench taking a lenient view converted the penalty of fine into warning
Judgment & Decree
1. This Order shall dispose of Appeal No. 29 of 2017 filed under Section 33 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 against the Order dated January 25, 2017, passed by the Commissioner (CCD) under Rule 25 of the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules 2013 (the Rules) read with section 506(2) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation Limited (the Appellant) was required to publish, circulate and file with the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, a Statement of Compliance (the SOC) and Review Report (the Resort) of the auditor for the years ended June 30, 2014 and June 30, 2015 under Rule 24(1)(2) of the Rules. However, the Appellant failed to do so, therefore, a Show Cause Notice dated April 28, 2016 (the SCN) was issued to the Appellant and its directors/officers.
3. The Appellant replied to the SCN vide a letter dated June 3, 2016 and informed the Respondent that after the eighteenth constitutional amendment, the subject "tourism" had been abolished from the concurrent list and Inter Provincial Coordination Division had suggested the Appellant's winding up and transfer of its assets to the provinces. Hearing in the matter was held on 24/01/17. The Respondent being dissatisfied with the response of the Appellant, imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/- on the Appellant's chief executive.
4. The Appellant has preferred this Appeal before the Appellate Bench (the Bench) inter alia on the grounds that it is facing uncertainty regarding its future due to the constitutional amendment. Furthermore, in March, 2015 the National Accountability Bureau, Rawalpindi has taken into custody Appellant's record, so the audit was delayed. The Respondent had rebutted the grounds of Appeal through written comments and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.
5. The Bench has heard the parties (Appellant and Respondent) and perused the record of Appeal. There is no doubt that the Appellant had failed to file the SOC and the Report in a timely manner, however, the requirement was complied through subsequent filing. The Respondent has also confirmed that the Appellant had filed the SOC and Report for the years ended June 30, 2014 and June 30, 2015. The Bench has considered the subsequent compliance of the Appellant, therefore, we are inclined to take a lenient view in this case. However, a lenient view shall not exonerate the Appellant from established and admitted violations of the Rules. In view thereof, we hereby convert the penalty of fine, into a warning and direct the Appellant and the CEO to ensure strict compliance of the Rules in future. The Appeal is disposed of, without any order as to cost. SA/20/SEC Order accordingly.