P L D 1991 Lahore 467 (PLP)
Ch. JAMIL AHMAD — Petitioner Versus NIPPON BOBBIN COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD. — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1991 Lahore 467 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Ch. JAMIL AHMAD — Petitioner Versus NIPPON BOBBIN COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD. — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1991 Lahore 467 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1991 Lahore 467 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1991 Lahore 467 (PLP) (Ch. JAMIL AHMAD — Petitioner Versus NIPPON BOBBIN COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD. — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad for Petitioner. Sultan Khalid Cheema and Tariq Rahim, O.L. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 10(1)
Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3
Intra-Court appeal--Expression "appeal against any order, decision or judgment of the Court"--Connotation
Word "any", significance
Appeal against any order, decision or judgment of the Court passed under the Companies Ordinance shall lie to the Supreme Court
Where the company ordered to be wound up had a paid-up share capital of not less than one million rupees; and where the company ordered to be wound up had a paid-up capital of less than one million rupees; or had no share capital, such appeal shall lie only if the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal
Intra-Court appeal in such cases before the High Court was not competent.
Every word in a provision has to be given effect unless there be any repugnancy or contradiction. [p. 469] B
Judgment & Decree
A plain reading of section 10(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 shows that appeal against any order, decision or judgment of the Court passed under the Ordinance shall lie to the Supreme Court where the company ordered to be wound up has a paid-up share capital of not less than one million rupees; and, where the company ordered to be wound up has a paid-up capital of less than one million rupees, or has no share capital, such appeal shall lie only if the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal. [p. 468] A It has been contended that section 10(1) should be read so as to be only applicable where a winding up order is to be challenged. Such a contention on the face of it is not tenable as the words used in section 10(1) in unequivocal and unambiguous terms are "appeal against any order, decision or judgment of the Court
The word "any" has a significant meaning and cannot be thrown out as redundant; it being the cardinal principle of interpretation that every word used in a provision has to be given effect unless there be any repugnancy or contradiction. Such a situation is not prevailing in the present case and therefore, word "any" has to be read in the provision which has a sweeping connotation to cover all orders, decisions or judgments of the Court passed under the Ordinance when the winding up order has already been made. The appeal envisaged by section 10(2) appears to be in such a case where the winding up order has not as yet been passed. The two provisions viz. subsection (1) and subsection (2) therefore, stand reconciled that in case an appeal is to be preferred against any order, decision or judgment when an order of winding up has been passed, it will lie to the Supreme Court of Pakistan whether in the shape of appeal or petition for leave to appeal as the case may be and subsection (2) of section 10 will be attracted in respect of an order when winding up has not already been directed. [p. 4691 B Intra-Court appeal is not competent before High Court. [p. 469] C Messrs Mehboob Industries Ltd v. Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. 1988 CLC 866 distinguished. (b) Interpretation of statutes
Every word in a provision has to be given effect unless there be any repugnancy or contradiction. [p. 469] B Ch. Khurshid Ahmad for Petitioner. Sultan Khalid Cheema and Tariq Rahim, O.L. for Respondent. Date of hearing: 31st March, 1991.