Home Maxims & Terms Application to court meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Application to court

Application to court legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2022 CLD 821 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
S. 286Application to CourtScope

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.

2021 CLD 7 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
S. 286Application to CourtOppression by majority shareholdersWord 'oppression'Definition

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.

2021 CLD 7 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
S. 286Companies Act, 2006 [United Kingdom], S. 994Application to CourtOppression and mismanagement by majority shareholders

Statutory law and principles in UK in relation to protection of members/minority shareholders from such oppression and mismanagement.

2021 CLD 7 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
S. 286Application to Court

True intent and spirit of S. 286 of the Companies Act, 2017.

2021 CLD 7 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
S. 286Companies Act, 2013 [India], S. 241Application to CourtOppression and mismanagement by majority shareholders

Statutory law and principles in India in relation to protection of members/minority shareholders from such oppression and mismanagement.

2021 CLD 7 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
S. 286Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962), PreambleApplication to CourtScope

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.

2013 CLD 114 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
S. 290Application to courtLimitationScope

Jurisdiction under Companies Ordinance, 1984, is indisputably equitable in nature and relief can be refused on the grounds of laches.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Application to court", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939551

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Application to court"

PLC 1974
Appeal No. KAR‑419 of 1973, decided on 12th July 1973.

1974 P L C 257

BUTLA COMPANY Versus WORKERS' UNION

Court: High Court
PLC 1974
Appeal No. KAR: 406 of 1973, decided on 21st July 1973.

1974 P L C 273

SARTAJ HOTEL Versus MUSHTAQ AHMED SIDDIQI

Court: High Court
PLC 1976
LA-CLAIR INTERNATIONAL, KARACHI Appeal No. KAR-176 of 1973, decided on 10th May 1973.

1976 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 Sind
PTD 2005
Sales Tax Appeal No.K-87 of 2004, decided on 6th January, 2005.

2005 P T D (Trib

N/A

Court: Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
CLD 2021
2020-December-3

2021 C L D 7

NADEEM KIANI — Petitioner Versus Messrs AMERICAN LYCETUFF (PVT.) LIMITED and others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
CLD 2003
2002-October-4

2003 C L D 1331

Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED — Plaintiff Versus Messrs SINDH TECH INDUSTRIES LTD. and others — Defendants

Court: Karachi
CLC 1986
Revision Application No. 165 of 1975, decided on 25th February, 1986.

1986 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.
CLC 1992
C.P. No.D‑623 of 1990, heard on 26th February, 1992.

1992 C L C 1964

SHER ALI AKHTAR and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Messrs HABIB BANK LTD. and another‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
CLD 2005
J. M. No. 52 of 2001, decided on 24th November, 2003.

2005 C L D 463

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LEASING LIMITED and 30 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
CLC 1993
F.R.A. No. 2,t9 and C.MA. 645 of 1991, decided on 2nd June,‑1992.

1993 C L C 1076

FAZAL HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus MEHMOOD HUSSAIN ‑‑‑ Respondent

Court: Karachi