| Case ID |
02f7c56c-b733-44eb-9d89-a38a17a4da57 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revision No. 1604 of 1996 |
| Decision Date |
May 19, 2003 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 15, 2003 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging the order of the Additional District Judge. The court found that the application for leave to appear and defend was validly filed on behalf of the respondents. The court noted that the Chief Executive of the company was competent to file the application and that the authority to act on behalf of the company was found in the Articles of Association. The court emphasized the importance of allowing parties to defend against suits and not allowing procedural technicalities to prevent justice. The court also highlighted that the powers of attorney were duly executed and the objections raised regarding their validity were considered hyper-technical, which should not defeat the ends of justice. |
| Summary |
In the case of Civil Revision No. 1604 of 1996, the Lahore High Court addressed the procedural complexities surrounding the application for leave to appear and defend filed by Messrs Topworth Investments (Macau) Ltd. The court assessed the authority of the Chief Executive to represent the company and the validity of the powers of attorney submitted during the proceedings. The ruling emphasized that the application was competently filed and that the procedural objections raised by the petitioner were overly technical. The court reinforced the principle that technicalities should not obstruct the pursuit of justice, particularly when the merits of the case warrant a fair hearing. The decision highlights the importance of adhering to procedural rules while ensuring that parties can defend their interests in court. This case serves as a significant reference for future cases involving corporate representation and procedural compliance, making it a vital resource for legal practitioners and scholars. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
SYED JAMSHED ALI
|
| Lawyers |
S.M. Almas Ali,
Ch. Ihsan-ul-Haq Bhalli
|
| Petitioners |
SAHIBZADA ANWAR HAMID
|
| Respondents |
MESSRS TOPWORTH INVESTMENTS (MACAU) LTD.,
Mr. Yiu Wai Ming William,
Mr. Lee Kim Wo,
Mr. Leving Hing Tak,
Mr. Shahrukh Saeed
|
| Citations |
2004 SLD 549,
2004 CLD 399
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Contract Act (IX of 1872),
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),
Stamp Act (II of 1899),
Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)
|
| Sections |
15,
O. VI, Rr. 1, 15, 16,
O.XXXVII, R.3,
O.XXIX, R.1,
O.III, R.2(b),
O.XXXVII, Rr.2(2) & 3,
197,
Art. 17,
Art. 95,
S.35,
Ss. 451, 452 & 456
|