CLD 2007

2007 PLP 605 (CLD)

Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/312/2006, dated December 6, 2006

Jurisdiction / Court
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan
Decided Date
2007-February-12
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2007 PLP 605 (CLD)
Forum / Court Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan
Bench Members N/A
Parties Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/312/2006, dated December 6, 2006
Primary Law Companies Ordinance (XLVII of'1984)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 605 (CLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of'1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 605 (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: 2007 PLP 605 (CLD) (Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/312/2006, dated December 6, 2006). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Companies Ordinance (XLVII of'1984)

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 158 & 476

Failure to hold Annual General Meeting

Imposition of penalty

Company which under S.158(1) of Companies Ordinance, I984 was required to hold its Annual General Meeting for relevant year having failed to comply with said mandatory provision of law, a show-cause notice was served on the company

None of the Directors of the company could justify said default

Directors had simply stated that their Accountant had left the job and new Accountant was not fully aware of the facts and thus finalization of accounts was delayed

Validity

Resignation of Accountant was not a cogent reason to justify default

Directors of the company were responsible for timely holding of Annual General Meetings and they should have made necessary arrangements to prepare accounts and complete rest of the formalities accordingly

Protection of investors/share-holders, was one of the primary objectives of Companies Ordinance, 1984 as it was investors/share-holders who provided seed for capital formation

If their interest was protected they would invest more to save the company

Company, in circumstances must ensure transmission of timely, adequate and meaningful information to them--Annual and interim accounts were to provide information to the share-holders about the affairs of the company and Annual General Meeting was a forum where they could freely speak, discuss and vote on important matters

Directors of the company had failed to observe mandatory. requirements of law with regard to timely holding of Annual General Meeting

Default under S.158 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 was wilful and deliberate which had attracted the penal provisions of subsection (4) of S.158 of Companies Ordinance, 1984

However in. view of the fact that company had held its Annual General Meeting and management of company had assured future prompt compliance, taking a lenient view, instead of imposing maximum fine of Rs.50,000 on the company and every Director, token penalty of Rs.5,000 was imposed on each Director of the company.

Judgment & Decree

ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT).

This order shall dispose of the proceedings initiated against Noor Silk Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Company") and its Directors for default made in complying with the provisions of subsection (1) of section 158 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 (the "Ordinance").

2. The facts leading to this case, briefly stated, are that in terms of the provisions of subsection (1) of section 158 of the Ordinance, the Company was required to hold its Annual General Meeting (the "AGM") for the year ended June 30, 2006 on or before October 31, 2006. The failure of the Company to comply with the aforementioned provisions of the Ordinance necessitated action against the Company and its Directors in terms of subsection (4) of section 158 of the Ordinance. Consequently, a show-cause notice dated December 6, 2006 was served on the Company and its Directors including the Chief Executive calling upon them to show cause as to why penalties as provided under subsection (4) of section 158 read with section 476 of the Ordinance may not be imposed on them.

3. In response to the show-cause notice, the Company furnished written explanation vide letter dated December 11, 2006 stating that the Company was facing some unavoidable circumstances as the Chief Executive was seriously ill and the Directors were not available to resume factory matters. It was further stated that the annual accounts for the year ended June 30, 2006 could not be finalized and presented for audit hence holding of AGM was delayed. It was further informed that the management has now completed the accounts and has finalized the program for holding the AGM. In order to give an opportunity of personal hearing, the matter was fixed for January 16, 2007. In response to the hearing notice, Mr. M. Amin H. Noor Muhammad, Chief Executive of the Company informed that the audit of accounts has been completed and notice of AGM has been published in the newspapers in compliance with the provisions of law. On the date of hearing, Mr. Amin, Chief Executive of the Company appeared on behalf of Directors of the Company. During the course of hearing he while admitting the default reiterated the same arguments as were given in the written replies. He added that their accountant had left the job and the new accountant was not fully aware of the facts therefore finalization of accounts was delayed. He informed that the Company is holding AGM on February 1, 2007 and requested for a lenient view and assured timely compliance of the provisions of law in future.

4. I have gone through the record of the Company and have given due consideration to the written and verbal submissions by Mr. Amin causing delay in holding of AGM and to circulate annual accounts within the mandatory time period, however, none of them justify the default. The resignation of accountant is not a cogent reason to justify the default. The Directors of the Company were responsible for timely holding of AGM, therefore, they should have made necessary arrangements to prepare accounts and complete rest of the formalities accordingly.

5. Before proceeding to decide this case, I consider it necessary to highlight the importance of the mandatory provisions of the law. The protection of the investors/ shareholders is one of the primary objectives of the Ordinance, It is investors/shareholders who provide seed for capital formation. If their interest is protected, they will invest more to save the Company, therefore the Company must ensure transmission of timely, adequate and meaningful information to them. It is the annual and interim accounts, which provide information to the shareholders about the affairs of the company and Annual General Meeting is a forum where they can freely speak, discuss and vote on important matters concerning, approval of accounts, appointment of auditors, election of directors etc. It has unfortunately been noted that the directors of the Company failed to observe the compulsory requirement of law with regards to timely holding of AGM and circulation of annual accounts for the year ended June 30, 2006.

6. In view of the above, the default under section 158 is considered wilful and deliberate, which attracts the penal provisions of subsection (4) of section 158 of the Ordinance. However, keeping in view the fact that the company has held its AGM on February 1, 2007 and management has assured future compliance, I am inclined to take a lenient view and instead of imposing the maximum fine of Rs.50,000 on the Company and every Director and. a further fine of Rs.2,000 per day for the continuous default, I impose a token penalty of Rs.5,000 (Rupees five thousand only) under subsection (4) of section 158 read with section 476 of the Ordinance on the Chief Executive and each of the directors of the Company. However, no penalty is imposed on the Company. The details of the penalties imposed are as follows: S. No. Name Penalty (in Rs.) (1) Mr. M. Arvin H.Noor Muhammad, Chief Executive 5,000 (2) Hail Noor Muhammad Haji A Ghani, Director 5,000 (3) Mrs. Farida Ashraf , Director 5,000 (4) Mr. Abdul Rauf Muhammad, Director 5,000 (5) Mr. Ashraf H. Muhammad, Director 5,000 (6) Mr. Younus A. Aziz, Director 5.000 (7) Mrs. Jamila Ilyas. Director 5,000 Total 35,000

7. The Chief Executive and Directors of Noor Silk Mills Limited are hereby directed to deposit the aforesaid fine of Rs.35,000 (Rupees thirty five thousand only) in the designated bank account maintained in the name of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan with Habib Bank Limited or pay through a demand draft in the name of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan within thirty days from the receipt of this order and furnish receipted vouchers to the Commission failing which proceedings for recovery of the fine under the Land Revenue Act, 1967 would be initiated. It should also be noted that the said penalty is imposed on the Chief Executive and directors of the Company in their personal capacity therefore they are required to pay the said amount from their personal resources. H.B.T. /6/SEC Order accordingly.