| Case ID |
3814d60f-fe87-4327-a0c6-cbebb718c7c4 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Judicial Miscellaneous No.69 of 1990 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 13, 1996 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court dismissed the petition for winding-up of the respondent-company on the grounds that the petitioners, being merely contributories, did not possess the necessary locus standi as required under section 309 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The court emphasized that the number of members of the respondent-company was not reduced below seven, which is a prerequisite for a contributory to present a winding-up petition. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the circumstances warranted a winding-up order as an alternative remedy, thereby upholding the legal principle that winding-up is an extreme measure that requires clear justification. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around a petition filed by Arshad Tanveer, Chairman of the S.I.T.E. Association of Industry, seeking the winding-up of the Sindh Industrial Trading Estates Limited (S.I.T.E.), a company limited by guarantee established to facilitate industrial development. The petitioners claimed that the Board of Directors was illegal and sought various declarations regarding the validity of directors and the company’s management. The court, however, ruled that the petitioners lacked the necessary locus standi to maintain the petition due to their status as contributories and the failure to meet the requirements stipulated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The case underscores the stringent criteria for contributories to initiate winding-up proceedings and highlights the importance of adhering to corporate governance protocols. Key legal principles regarding contributory status, locus standi, and the conditions under which a company may be wound-up were thoroughly examined. The court's decision serves as a critical reference for understanding the intersection of corporate law and the rights of stakeholders within a company. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Government of Sindh,
S.I.T.E. Association of Industry,
S.I.T.E.
|
| Judges |
Rana Bhagwan Das
|
| Lawyers |
Munib Akhtar,
S.A. Smad Khan
|
| Petitioners |
Arshad Tanveer
|
| Respondents |
Sindh Industrial Trading Estates Limited
|
| Citations |
1997 SLD 631,
1997 CLC 456
|
| Other Citations |
Consolidated Exports Ltd. v. Dyer Textile and Printing Mills Ltd. PLD 1984 Kar. 541,
Re P.R. Karishna Swami AIR 1948 Mad. 162,
Amar Nath v. Karnal Electric Supply Company Ltd. AIR 1952 Pb. 411,
Robin Hollington in Minority Share Holders' Rights, 2nd Edn., pp. 29-30,
Re: Bayswater Trading Company Ltd. (1970) 40 Comp. Cas. 1196,
Virendra Singh Bhandari v. Nand Lal Bhandari & Sons Ltd. (1982) 52 Comp. Cases 36,
Re: Gutta Percha Corporation (1900) 2 Ch. 655
|
| Laws Involved |
Companies Ordinance, 1984
|
| Sections |
300,
305,
309
|