Mechanism

2026 CLD 533 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.131 & 132Statutory meetingMandatory complianceHolding of Annual General Meeting (AGM), obligation ofStatutory timeframeFailure to hold AGMConsequencesExtraordinary General Meeting (EGM), resort toMechanismBoard's power to convene EGMScope

Every public company having a share capital is obligated to hold a general meeting of members of the company within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of which the company is entitled to commence business or within nine months from the date of its incorporation whichever is earlier

This shall be called a statutory meeting

Section 132 is about annual general meetings of a company and provides that every company shall hold an annual general meeting within sixteen months from the date of its incorporation and thereafter once in every calendar year within a period of one hundred and twenty days following the close of its financial year

Thus, by the tenor of S.132 every company is obliged under the law to hold an annual general meeting once in every calendar year within a period of one hundred and twenty days following the close of its financial year

Time for holding an AGM cannot be extended beyond a period of thirty days from the original one hundred and twenty days provided by law

That period has come to pass in respect of financial years till 2024

It was under these circumstances that the respondents resorted to calling of extraordinary general meeting as contemplated by S.133

A reading of S.133 indubitably leads to the conclusion that all meetings of the members of the company shall be referred as general meetings of a company

Further, all general meetings of a company other than the annual general meeting referred in S.132 and statutory meeting mentioned in S.131 shall be called extra ordinary general meetings for the precise reason that an EGM is held under special circumstances and by subsection (2) the Board may at any time call an extraordinary general meeting of the company to consider any matter which requires approval of the company in a general meeting

Doubtless,

2026 CLC 432 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.12Exclusion of time in legal proceedings for the purpose of computing the limitation periodMechanismLimitation of appealComputation"Time requisite"Connotation and scope

From the perusal of subsection (2) of S.12 of Limitation Act, 1908, it is clear that in computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, the day on which the judgment complained is pronounced, and the 'time requisite' for obtaining a copy of the decree, or order appealed from shall be excluded

Subsection (5), thereof, on the other hand, ordains that for the purposes of subsections (2), (3) and (4), the 'requisite time' for obtaining a copy of decree, sentence, order, judgment or award shall be deemed to be the time intervening between the day on which an application for the copy is made and the day actually intimated to the applicant to be the day on which the copy will be ready for delivery.

2026 PLD 226 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.131 & 132Statutory meetingMandatory complianceHolding of Annual General Meeting (AGM), obligation ofStatutory timeframeFailure to hold AGMConsequencesExtraordinary General Meeting (EGM), resort toMechanismBoard's power to convene EGMScope

Every public company having a share capital is obligated to hold a general meeting of members of the company within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of which the company is entitled to commence business or within nine months from the date of its incorporation whichever is earlier

This shall be called a statutory meeting

Section 132 is about annual general meetings of a company and provides that every company shall hold an annual general meeting within sixteen months from the date of its incorporation and thereafter once in every calendar year within a period of one hundred and twenty days following the close of its financial year

Thus, by the tenor of S.132 every company is obliged under the law to hold an annual general meeting once in every calendar year within a period of one hundred and twenty days following the close of its financial year

Time for holding an AGM cannot be extended beyond a period of thirty days from the original one hundred and twenty days provided by law

That period has come to pass in respect of financial years till 2024

It was under these circumstances that the respondents resorted to calling of extraordinary general meeting as contemplated by S.133

A reading of S.133 indubitably leads to the conclusion that all meetings of the members of the company shall be referred as general meetings of a company

Further, all general meetings of a company other than the annual general meeting referred in S.132 and statutory meeting mentioned in S.131 shall be called extra ordinary general meetings for the precise reason that an EGM is held under special circumstances and by subsection (2) the Board may at any time call an extraordinary general meeting of the company to consider any matter which requires approval of the company in a general meeting

Doubtless, subsection (2) of S.133 confers power on the Board to call an EGM and any matter may be considered in an EGM which requires the approval of a company in a general meeting.

2025 CLC 922 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 38 & 39Hunting (of houbara bustard bird) by Arab dignitariesCommunity Game Reserves on private properties by their ownersMechanism

Record (including report submitted by Official Respondents) revealed that the private properties were generally not allocated to any person for hunting in this regard, and the Ministry recommended the areas for hunting, which were approved in consultation with the Wildlife Department of the concerned Province

However, in exceptional circumstances, private properties were allocated but with the express consent of the property owners as per the law

Section 38 of Balochistan Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Act, 2014) ('the Act 2014'), provides that where the Government is satisfied that an area of land in private ownership supports sizable population of game animals or has the potential of increasing the number of game animals to harvestable level, it can designate it as a Private Game Reserve on receipt of a formal request from a single owner or 80% of the owners of any jointly owned area, for managing and using it sustainably for hunting of game animals

More importantly, the owner shall manage and use the Private Game Reserve sustainably by a management plan endorsed by the authorized officer

Although the owner is entitled to all income derived from hunting therein or from other sustainable uses of the Private Game Reserve with the condition that the owner is obligated to spend at least 20% of the gross income from a Private Game Reserve for the improvement and development of the Private Game Reserve

Further, the owner is bound to prepare a management plan for the Private Game Reserve in consultation with the authorized authority for its implementation.

2022 PTD 1690 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss.4(1)(s) & 140Tax recoveryCoercive measuresMechanismRedressal of grievance

Federal Board of Revenue is endowed with duty to facilitate taxpayers and establish mechanism to address their grievances and complaints

Under fiscal laws, including Income Tax Ordinance 2001, officials are conferred vast powers to adopt coercive measures to affect recovery of tax liability under S.140 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, from person holding money on behalf of taxpayer

Such powers should never be abused to meet collection targets by Commissioner or by adopting abhorrent procedures such as not serving notice under S.140 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, in a timely fashion on taxpayer and or third party from whom collection is to be made in order to pre-empt opportunity for such persons to verify or challenge such demand to seek redressal against it

In case such power is abused by tax officials or wrongly exercised, leading to recovery from a person from whom collection could not be made under S.140 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, there must be provided a grievance redressal mechanism in discharge of Federal Board of Revenue's functions under S.4(1)(s) of Income Tax Ordinance 2001.

2020 PLD 487 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302 & 34Qatl-i-amd, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceAppointment of medical expertMechanismAccused was charged for committing murder of the deceasedPlea of the accused was that it was a case of death by hanging whereas case of prosecution was that it was by asphyxia

Investigating Officer as well other Police Officers including the Prosecutor, who supervised the investigation, admitted that they were not aware about the difference between asphyxia and hanging and there was no guidelines in such conditions

Doctors and Police Surgeon contended that they did not receive any clarification from the Investigating Officers with regard to the facts of the case and seat of injuries to verify that in such circumstances, injury could be caused or not

Prima facie, it showed lack of proper co-ordination between the investigation agency and authorized Medical Officer/Police Surgeon

Importance and vitality of Police Surgeon/Authorized Medical Officer could not be denied, which required a complete coordination with investigation wing

Said coordination however, seemed to be not possible as there was no proper mechanism for appointment on such specific posts

High Court directed the competent authority to examine such aspects and provide a mechanism that appointments/recruitments of Medico Legal Officer, Additional Police Surgeon and Police Surgeon would be made keeping in view the objective of post and purpose thereof and not from general cadre

Persons appointed must be skilled and must always be ready in encouraging and helping the investigation wing in finding all possible angles; there must be mechanism to supervise high profile cases; training of Medico Legal Officers, Police Surgeon would also endorse post-mortem reports.

2015 PLD 143 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 46Dying declaration, recording ofMechanismArticle 46 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, postulated a mechanism for recording the dying declaration

Dying declaration, whenever possible, preferably be recorded by a Magistrate; and if Magistrate was not possible, or there was no time to call the Magistrate due to deteriorating condition of the victim, it could be any body e.g., public servant like a Medical Officer, or any other person

In case of absence of the Magistrate and the Police Officer, such statement should be recorded in presence of two or more reliable disinterested witnesses in the case

If availability of two independent witnesses was not possible, then it should be recorded in presence of two or more Police Officials

Conviction could be based on dying declaration alone, provided it was true and free from prompting from outside

To accept such statement, without considering the surrounding circumstances of the case, would not be safe administration of justice to convict accused merely on the basis of so called dying declaration.