Alteration of Articles
Alteration of Articles legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Section 92 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 left it to the discretion of a company to increase its share capital which may be done by conferring the authorization in the Articles of Association of a company
Power resided in the company by virtue of its Articles and primary power that S. 92 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 dealt with was the increase in the share capital of a company which was the alteration of its share capital
Alteration in the Memorandum and the Articles of Association naturally flows from such act of the alteration of the share capital of a company and mere fact that S. 92 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 did not make a mention of the alteration in the Articles of Association, did not detract from the fact that such alteration will be brought about and, therefore, S. 28 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 would be triggered in such circumstances.
"Alteration of Articles", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124959472
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Alteration of Articles"
2017 C L D 587
Messrs KINGSWAY CAPITAL LLP and another — Petitioners Versus MURREE BREWERY CO. LTD. and 10 others — Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1983-Karachi 589
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ MOTI-Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN THROUGH SECTION OFFICER, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Court:2019 C L D 355
INAM ULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus AKSA SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (PVT.) LTD. and others — Respondents
Court: IslamabadP L D 1971 Lahore 533
Ch. SHAFQATULLAH‑Petitioner Versus DELIMITATION COMMISSION, PAKISTAN THROUGH ITS
Court: High Court2011 Y L R 2497
AKBAR ALI — Appellant Versus ADDITIONAL I.G. POLICE and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2019 C L C 695
Mrs. FARKHANDA FAROUQ and others — Petitioners Versus DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2013 P L C 143
Syed IMRAN ALI SHAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Human Resources (HR) Division, Islamabad and 2 others
Court: Lahore High CourtF L D 1963 Supreme Court 226
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Court: The wording of the new provision Art. 58 (2) (b) in the Constitution of 1962, shows a considerable variation from that of Article 159 of the 1956 Constitution, but the mere omission of certain words, or of a certain mode of specification adopted in the earlier Constitution cannot be constructed to signify enlargement of the right of appeal. The precise effect of the new provision is not to be judged merely by evaluation of such omissions or any change of language, when compared with the 1956 Constitution, since the new Constitution is not in any sense an amendment of that of 1956, the proper method of interpretation of the new provision is by reference to the relevant provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code.1986 C L C 1429
TILLA MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF NORTH-WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE through Secretary, Law Department and another — Respondents
Court: PeshawarP L D 1949 Privy Council 339
RAM KISSENDAS DHANUKA and others-Appellants Versus SATYA CHARAN LAW and others-Respondents
Court: