1990 PLP 391 (SCMR)
Messrs ASHRAF ENGINEERING WORKS Ltd.‑‑Petiti6ner‑ Versus M.A.S. STEEL MILLS Ltd. and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 391 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs ASHRAF ENGINEERING WORKS Ltd.‑‑Petiti6ner‑ Versus M.A.S. STEEL MILLS Ltd. and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 391 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 391 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 391 (SCMR) (Messrs ASHRAF ENGINEERING WORKS Ltd.‑‑Petiti6ner‑ Versus M.A.S. STEEL MILLS Ltd. and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate-on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 6‑7‑1985 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Original No.17 of 1976). ‑‑‑Ss. 329 & 337‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Statement of Official‑Liquidator with regard to liability of petitioner company; accepted by the High Court‑‑‑Legality‑‑‑Supreme Court, after having gone through the written statement and other documents relied upon by the petitioner and otherwise brought to Court's notice had not been able to find any error of law or any principle with regard to appreciation of the material placed before the High Court, regarding the findings of fact which essentially formed the subject‑matter of High Court's order‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate-on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought; against the order of a learned Liquidation Judge of the Lahore High Court, with regard to the liability of the petitioner Company; the purchaser of the property of another company (respondent No. 1 herein); vis‑a‑vis, the payment of electricity bill amounting the payment of Rs. 5,00,000 had already been made, therefore, the liability was of lesser amount. An inquiry had been held by the Official Liquidator in this behalf. After the submission of necessary reports the learned Judge in the High Court passed the following order:‑‑ "The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner produced certificate of WAPDA regarding payment of Rs. 5,00,000 but the Official Liquidator had verified from the WAPDA that the certificate was not genuine but was bogus and that the WAPDA asserted its claim to the tune of Rs. 9,53,131.97 which he has verified. I have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce fresh statement of accounts from the WAPDA in order to show that its claim is less. He is not agreeable to this proposal. In these circumstances the claim of the WAPDA amounting to Rs. 9,53,131.97 is confirmed." Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the statement of the Official Liquidator to the effect that WAPDA had not owned the certificate of payment of Rs. 5,00,000 as genuine and had declared it as bogus, should not have been accepted by the High Court. He urged that the direct stand taken by the WAPDA in their written statement filed against the application submitted by the petitioner, did not confirm the position taken by the Official Liquidator. We, after having gone through the said written statement and other documents relied upon by the learned counsel and otherwise brought to our notice, have not been able to find any error of law or any principle with regard to appreciation of the material placed before the High Court regarding the findings of fact which essentially formed the subject‑matter of the impugned order. That being so, leave to appeal is refused. A.A./A‑595/S Leave refused.