| Case ID |
0064e4f0-4483-44fe-b01f-24cabd9dc757 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
B-17 of 2005 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 21, 2010 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court ruled that the suit filed against the defendant No.1 was not maintainable due to the lack of prior leave from the court as required under section 316 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The court emphasized that the provisions of the Companies Ordinance are mandatory and non-compliance with these regulations undermines the legislative intent. The court also highlighted the role of the Official Liquidator and the necessity for the company to be represented in such proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of following procedural requirements during the winding-up process and the implications of failing to obtain the necessary permissions before initiating legal action against a company undergoing liquidation. |
| Summary |
In the case of B-17 of 2005, the Sindh High Court addressed the complexities involved in suits against companies in liquidation, specifically focusing on the requirements set forth in the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The court examined the duties of the Official Liquidator and the implications of failing to obtain prior leave before filing a suit against a company under winding-up. The ruling highlighted that the statutory provisions are designed to protect the interests of all parties involved in the winding-up process, ensuring that claims are properly managed and represented. The court's decision serves as a critical reminder for legal practitioners to adhere strictly to procedural rules when dealing with cases involving liquidated entities. This case is particularly relevant in the context of financial institutions and their recovery processes, emphasizing the need for compliance with legal frameworks to avoid dismissals based on technicalities. The ruling also touches on the responsibilities of guarantors in financial agreements, reiterating that their liabilities are co-extensive with those of the principal debtor. Legal professionals must remain vigilant in understanding these nuances to effectively navigate the complexities of corporate law and insolvency proceedings. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Habib Bank Limited,
Official Assignee,
Schon Textile Limited
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR
|
| Lawyers |
Mansoor Ghanghro,
Mushtaq A. Memon
|
| Petitioners |
MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD. THROUGH ATTORNEYS
|
| Respondents |
MESSRS SCHON TEXTILE LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR AND 8 OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2010 SLD 688,
2010 CLD 1819
|
| Other Citations |
People's Industrial Bank Limited v. Ram Chandar Shukul and others AIR 1930 Allahabad 503,
Afshan Ahmed v. H.B.L. Limited and another 2002 CLD 137,
United Bank Limited v. Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation PLD 2002 SC 1100,
Knowles v. Scott (1981) 1 Ch. 717 at P.723,
Director Industries Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Nowshera Engineering Company 2002 SCMR 1747,
Rafique Hazquel v. Bank Alfalah Ltd. 2005 SCMR 72
|
| Laws Involved |
Companies Ordinance, 1984,
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
|
| Sections |
333,
316,
2(c),
9,
10
|