2024 PLP 872 (CLD)
MUHAMMAD YOUNIS — Petitioner Versus Messrs SHAHID SURGICAL (PVT.) LTD. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2024 PLP 872 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUNIS — Petitioner Versus Messrs SHAHID SURGICAL (PVT.) LTD. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Companies Act (XIX of 2017) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2024 PLP 872 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Companies Act (XIX of 2017) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2024 PLP 872 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2024 PLP 872 (CLD) (MUHAMMAD YOUNIS — Petitioner Versus Messrs SHAHID SURGICAL (PVT.) LTD. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Masood Ahmad Zafar and Awais Bin Tariq for Petitioner.
- Usman Nasir Awan, Wajahat Ali and Mirza Waqas Baig for Respondents Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5.
- Shan Saeed Ghumman for Respondent No.3.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 126, 136 & 160
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5 & Art. 181
Petition for rectification of register of members and to declare invalid the proceedings of a general meeting as well as election of directors, filing of
Application for condonation of delay
Scope
Petitioner (director / shareholder of the company) moved petition in the year 2021 challenging proceedings held in the year 2003
Petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that he came to know about impugned proceedings during perusal of certified true copies issued by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan in the year 2020
Ground, taken by the petitioner, did not furnish a reasonable cause to compel the Court to condone the delay
Such petitions, like the present one for rectification etc., where no period of limitation is provided would be governed by Art. 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for which a period of three years is provided
Present petition was clearly beyond that period and challenged the transfer of shares which took place in the year 2003
Each day's delay had to be explained by the petitioner which had not been done sufficiently
Present petition being beyond the period of three years provided by law is clearly barred by statutes, which was dismissed
Consequently, main petition for rectification etc. filed in the year 2021 by the director / shareholder was also dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SHAHID KARIM, J.
This is a petition under Sections 126, 136 and 160 of the Companies Act, 2017.
2. C.M No.2 of 2021 has been filed as an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the limitation Act, 1908. The only ground given for seeking condonation is the following: "
2. That the applicant came to know regarding the impugned AGM-along with Election of Directors dated 26.12.2022, impugned AGM dated 30.10.2003 along with all subsequent AGMs and Elections of Directors, Form-A and Form-29 filed thereof during perusal of certified true copies issued by SECP on 18.08.2020, so that the applicant filed the said petition as and when came to his knowledge, the applicant could not approach this Hon'ble Court in time due to late knowledge of the impugned Annual General Meetings as well as Election of Directors."
3. Suffice to say that the above ground does not furnish a reasonable cause to compel this Court to condone the delay. It is pertinent to mention that in M/s Bentonite Pakistan Ltd. v. Bankers Equity Ltd. (2023 SCMR 1353) it has been held that such petitions where no period of limitation is provided would be governed by Article 181 of the Act,. 1908 for which a period of three years is provided. The instant petition is clearly beyond that period and challenges the transfer of shares which took place in the year 2003. Each day's delay has to be explained by the petitioner which has not been done sufficiently. This petition is beyond a period of three years provided by law and is clearly statute barred. C.M No.2. of 2021 is dismissed. Consequently, C.O No.81451 of 2021 is dismissed too. MQ/M-50/L Petition dismissed.