1989 PLP 2041 (MLD)

Constitutional Petition No. D-132 of 1989, decided on 6th February, 1989.

S. 43-AA--Petitioner acting as agent of Company and dealing in business of that company--Such agent could not be treated as representative of investors of such company--if investor company had claim, it could pursue its legal remedy- Claim of petitioner that he should be considered as a representative of investors and that Sate Bank be directed to lodge claim of investors through him, could not be granted when State Bank had already appointed receiver. Imran Ahmad for Petitioner 'In this petition, the petitioner has-claimed that he invested over Rs. 10 crores with M/s. T.J. Ibrahim and Co., doing their Modarba company business since 1976 and having more than 50,000 members. According to the petitioner he also participated in his personal capacity and on behalf of the other investors as he had held letter of authority from the said Mis. TJ. Ibrahim and Co. to receive the amount from the investors and to distribute the profit amongst them. His grievance is that now State Bank of Pakistan having acted under the provisions of Section 43-AA of the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962 as amended in 1988, has appointed the respondent No. 2 as the receiver in respect of the abovesaid company of M/s. T.J. Ibrahim and Co. and that they are harassing and preventing the petitioner and other representatives of the investors to approach the Court of law in their capacity as such. He has further contended that since he had been receiving the money from various individuals and depositing the same with M/s. T.J. Ibrahim and Co., he should be considered as a representative of the investors and that the respondent be directed to lodge the claim of the investors through him. We have heard Mr. Imran Ahmad, Advocate' for the petitioner who has reiterated the above contention of the petitioner. It is an admitted petition that the petitioner has acted as an agent on behalf of the abovesaid company of M/s. T.J. Ibrahim and Co., and thus he cannot be treated as a representative of the investors. The investors, if they have any claim, are at liberty to pursue their legal remedy. As far as the present petitioner is concerned, he on his own admission had acted as an agent dealing in the business of the abovesaid company. However, the relief sought by the petitioner is concerned; he on his own admission had acted as an agent dealing in the business of the abovesaid company. However, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot possibly be granted in view of the fact that the State Bank of Pakistan has already appointed a receiver who is seized of the matter. In view of the above we do trot find any force in the present petition which appears to be manoeuvred in order to provide protection to respondent No. 3. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A-586/K Petition dismissed.