2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
S. ZAFAR ALI SHAH Versus ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES and another
| Citation | 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ayesha A. Malik and Jawad Hassan, JJ |
| Parties | S. ZAFAR ALI SHAH Versus ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES and another |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ayesha A. Malik and Jawad Hassan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (S. ZAFAR ALI SHAH Versus ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Official Liquidator
Dispensing with service
Scope
Petitioner was relieved of his duties as Official Liquidator on the basis of allegations by the auction purchaser
Petitioner had filed reply to the application denying all the allegations leveled therein
Intra-Court appeal was pre-mature without waiting for the decision of said application which was still pending adjudication
Petitioner could establish his case before the Company Bench where he would be afforded opportunity of hearing
Petitioner could not be allowed to bypass the said forum
Intra court appeal being not maintainable was dismissed in limine.
Judgment & Decree
Through the instant Intra Court Appeal filed under Section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 the Appellant has called in question the legality of impugned order dated 09.12.2016 passed by the learned Company Bench of this Court in C.O. No.51/2003 whereby he was relieved of his duties as Official Liquidator on the basis of alleged allegations against him by the Auction Purchaser and he was further directed to be present on each date of hearing.
2. The learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the observations made in the impugned order with regard to allegations are not supported from the record, as such the same are liable to be struck down; that mere on the allegations against the Appellant the order for his appearance on every date is also nullity in the eye of law and liable to be set aside; that although removal of an Official Liquidator is prerogative of the Hon'ble Company Bench but dispensing with the duties mere on the basis of allegations without proof is illegal.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. From the perusal of record it transpired that the Company Bench in the impugned order dated 09.12.2016 has observed that in view of serious allegations against the Official Liquidator in C.M. No.37/2016 filed by the Auction Purchaser on 22.01.2016, the services of the Appellant are dispensed with and he is ordered to be present on each date and the case was adjourned to 13.01.2017 (now fixed on 21.02.2017). The record further reveals that the Appellant has filed reply to the said C.M. No.37/2016 on 20.09.2016 denying all the allegations levelled therein and praying for its dismissal with cost. As the Appellant has taken the same stance in reply to C.M. No.37/2016, therefore, the instant appeal is pre-mature without waiting the decision of the said application which is still pending adjudication and the next date of hearing before the Company Bench is 21.02.2017. The Appellant may establish his case before the Company Bench where he will be afforded full opportunity of hearing and he cannot be allowed to bypass the same through the instant appeal to set aside the directions of the Company Bench. Without touching the merits of the impugned order, it is observed here that the Appellant should better agitate the matter before the learned Company Bench where C.M. No.37/2016, on the basis of which the impunged order was passed, is pending and reply thereto was also filed by the Appellant.
5. In view of above, the instant appeal is not maintainable; consequently the same is hereby dismissed in limine. ZC/Z-5//L Appeal dismissed.