P L D 1961 W (PLP)
LTD. GROUP V, LYALLPUR ‑Appellant Versus MESSRS MUHAMMAD NAZIR‑1NAYAT ULLAH & Co.
| Citation | P L D 1961 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | LTD. GROUP V, LYALLPUR ‑Appellant Versus MESSRS MUHAMMAD NAZIR‑1NAYAT ULLAH & Co. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1961 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1961 W (PLP) (LTD. GROUP V, LYALLPUR ‑Appellant Versus MESSRS MUHAMMAD NAZIR‑1NAYAT ULLAH & Co.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Amanatullah for Appellant.
- Khawaja Abdur Rahim and Ghulam Dastagir for Respondents.
- Sardar Shah Bukhari for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
Route permit‑Appeal by one director of Company‑Other directors raising objection to appeal‑Appeal not competent. Secretary R. T. A.
Judgment & Decree
Route permit‑Appeal by one director of Company‑Other directors raising objection to appeal‑Appeal not competent. Amanatullah for Appellant. Khawaja Abdur Rahim and Ghulam Dastagir for Respondents. Sardar Shah Bukhari for Respondent No.
1. Secretary R. T. A. This appeal has been preferred by the New Lyallpur‑Samundri Transport Company Ltd. through Mailk Sultan Muhammad one of the directors of the company against the grant of certain route permits to Messrs Muhammad Nazir Inayatullah & Co. by the R. T. A. Lahore, in their meetings held on 14‑5‑1950 A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the other two directors of the Comp any by Khawaja Abdul Rahim, Advocate. It is urged that the appellant Company has three directors and two of them, i.e., the majority are opposed to this appeal. I have been referred to an agreement between the three directors of the appellant Company which was made a rule of the Court by Mr. Justice Shabir Ahmad of the West Pakistan High Court requiring all the three directors to come to' a unanimous decision for performing any act and in case the decision was not unanimous the matter had to be dropped. The plea taken up by the appellant's counsel is that a single director of a company is competent under the law to perform any act on behalf of the Company. This is a matter, which as the appellate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, I am not called upon to adjudi cate. The simple fact is that ‑two of the three directors object to the appeal and that should constitute sufficient ground to throw it out. Another point, which has been raised against appeal, is that the appellant company had not objected before the R. T. A. against the grant of the permits nor had they made any representation to that effect. A statement has been made that Malik Sultan Muhammad was present when this case was taken up by the R. T. A. and had objected to the grant. The record of the R. T. A. which mentions the presence of other objectors, however, does not bear out this assertion. One of the grounds urged in appeal is that this grant was made in contravention of the provisions of section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, namely, that it was made within thirty days of publication of the application made by the respondent company. My attention has been drawn to central issues of the Driver, which clearly show that the grant was made several months after the original application by the respondent or even republication of this application. As a result of above discussion I hold that the appeal is not competent and dismiss it. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.