| Case ID |
31d6ddf6-7512-48cb-8772-abf3ad237818 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Judicial Miscellaneous No.66 of 2003 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 11, 2005 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The petitioner sought winding up of the respondent company based on being a contingent creditor due to potential financial liability arising from a default by the company. The Sindh High Court held that to maintain such a petition under Section 309(d) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, the contingent creditor must furnish security. The court ordered the petitioner to provide security in the amount of Rs. 25,000 to the Nazir of the High Court within two weeks before the main petition could be heard. This decision is significant for understanding the rights of contingent creditors in company law and the procedural requirements for filing winding up petitions. |
| Summary |
In this case, the Sindh High Court dealt with the petition for winding up filed by a petitioner who claimed to be a contingent creditor of the respondent company, Ahmed Food Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. The petitioner argued that he was exposed to financial liability due to a default by the company and thus sought to wind up the company under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The court examined the requirements under Section 305 and Section 309 of the Ordinance, determining that the petitioner must furnish security to maintain the petition. The court emphasized the importance of this security as a safeguard against frivolous claims. This case illustrates the legal framework surrounding winding up petitions and the protections afforded to companies against unsubstantiated claims, thereby highlighting the balance between creditor rights and corporate governance. Legal practitioners and companies must pay heed to the implications of this ruling, especially in terms of contingent liabilities and the procedural steps required to initiate winding up proceedings. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
AHMED FOOD INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.
|
| Judges |
MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE,
ZAFAR MAHMOOD SHAIKH
|
| Lawyers |
Shabbir Ahmed Shaikh,
Saalim Salam Ansari
|
| Petitioners |
|
| Respondents |
MESSRS AHMED FOOD INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.
|
| Citations |
2005 SLD 351 = 2005 CLD 659
|
| Other Citations |
Ehsanullah Tarar v. Messrs Hafizabad Straw Board Mills Ltd. and 3 others PLD 1994 Lah. 160
|
| Laws Involved |
Companies Ordinance, 1984
|
| Sections |
305,
306,
309
|