Application to court
Application to court legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Where a petition is filed under S. 286 on the grounds that the affairs of the Company are being conducted in a manner that is prejudicial to the interests of the Company or its members, and that the affairs as conducted constitute oppression, then the Court under S. 286 of the Companies Act, 2017 is empowered to order for the compulsory purchase of shares of any members by the other members
Purchase of share, in circumstances, is non-consensual, as it is solely made on the basis of the order of the Court ultimately however, if any such order is made by the Court, then such a transfer shall also be recorded by the Company and any change of shareholders/members shall also be duly added in the Register of Members.
In context of a company or corporation the word "oppression" was defined as unfair treatment to minority shareholders by those who controlled the corporation or the company.
Statutory law and principles in UK in relation to protection of members/minority shareholders from such oppression and mismanagement.
True intent and spirit of S. 286 of the Companies Act, 2017.
Statutory law and principles in India in relation to protection of members/minority shareholders from such oppression and mismanagement.
While dealing with an application under S. 286 of the Companies Act, 2017, the Court could not look into dispute inter se the parties
Section 286 could not be invoked for settlement of disputes in respect of intellectual property rights between the parties in which other forums were available under the relevant laws.
Jurisdiction under Companies Ordinance, 1984, is indisputably equitable in nature and relief can be refused on the grounds of laches.
"Application to court", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939551
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Application to court"
1974 P L C 257
BUTLA COMPANY Versus WORKERS' UNION
Court: High Court1974 P L C 273
SARTAJ HOTEL Versus MUSHTAQ AHMED SIDDIQI
Court: High Court1976 P L C 625
MUHAMMAD SALAM QURESHI Versus LA-CLAIR INTERNATIONAL, KARACHI Appeal No. KAR-176 of 1973, decided on 10th May 1973.
Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind2005 P T D (Trib
N/A
Court: Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal2021 C L D 7
NADEEM KIANI — Petitioner Versus Messrs AMERICAN LYCETUFF (PVT.) LIMITED and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2003 C L D 1331
Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED — Plaintiff Versus Messrs SINDH TECH INDUSTRIES LTD. and others — Defendants
Court: Karachi1986 C L C 1657
Messrs SIND TANNERIES Ltd.‑‑Applicant Versus ABDUL WARIS KHAN‑‑Respondent
Court: ‑‑‑S. 39 & O. XXI, r. 6‑‑Executing Court‑‑Want of jurisdiction‑‑Exercise of power‑‑Extent of‑‑Executing Court directing return of decree and other papers to Court which had sent for execution thereof, for want of jurisdiction‑‑Such executing Court, held, would have no further jurisdiction to entertain another execution application and allow same‑ First Appellate Court consequently could only interfere with order of executing Court to extent of declaring same as order without jurisdiction and ordering for return of execution application to decree‑holder for presentation to proper Court‑‑First Appellate Court, however, could not dismiss execution application as time‑barred‑‑Such questions should have been left to be dealt with according to law by Court sending same for execution.‑‑Jurisdiction.1992 C L C 1964
SHER ALI AKHTAR and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Messrs HABIB BANK LTD. and another‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Karachi2005 C L D 463
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LEASING LIMITED and 30 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Karachi1993 C L C 1076
FAZAL HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus MEHMOOD HUSSAIN ‑‑‑ Respondent
Court: Karachi