| Case ID |
e320671c-8557-4e10-8c6d-6c3442cd6f25 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Suit No. 624 of 1998 and Suit No. 967 of 1996 |
| Decision Date |
May 28, 2015 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 27, 2015 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court addressed issues regarding the appointment of a receiver for the cinemas involved in the disputes. The court found that the application for the appointment of a receiver was not maintainable as the subject matter had become inoperative and damaged. The court emphasized that the object of appointing a receiver is to safeguard the interests of all parties involved in the litigation. The existing circumstances revealed that the cinemas were no longer functional, and the parties agreed on this status. The court decided to invite offers from other companies or individuals to take the subject matter on lease or rent, ensuring that the interests of the rightful owners are protected during the ongoing litigation. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the legal disputes concerning the ownership and operational status of two cinemas owned by a private limited company. The Sindh High Court deliberated on the application for the appointment of a receiver, which was ultimately deemed inappropriate due to the current state of the cinemas being inoperative and damaged. The court highlighted the importance of safeguarding the interests of all parties involved while also ensuring that the subject matter is preserved. The decision to invite offers from potential lessees underscores the court's commitment to finding a practical solution that maintains the value of the property amidst ongoing litigation. This case exemplifies the complexities of corporate law and civil procedure, particularly in the realm of receivership and property management within the context of legal disputes. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Panasian Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.,
Universal Development (Pvt.) Ltd.,
Universal Trading Company (Pvt.) Ltd.
|
| Judges |
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Khalid Javed for Plaintiff (in Suit No.624 of 1998),
Arshad M. Tayebaly, Amel Khan Kansi along with Muhammad Shahid for Defendant No.1(d) (in Suit No.624 of 1998),
Khawaja Shamsul Islam, Imran Taj and Shehzad Mehmood for Defendants Nos.3 (in Suit No.624 of 1998),
Arshad M. Tayebaly and Amel Khan Kansi along with Muhammad Shahid for Plaintiffs Nos.1 (a) to 1 (d) (in Suit No.967 of 1996),
Khawaja Shamsul Islam for Defendant No.1 (in Suit No.967 of 1996),
Khalid Javed for Defendant No.2 (in Suit No.967 of 1996)
|
| Petitioners |
MST. SARKAR KHANO A. MOLO
|
| Respondents |
ABDUL MALIK REHMATULLAH KASIM LAKHA THROUGH L.RS.,
Defendants
|
| Citations |
2016 SLD 3766,
2016 YLR 1506
|
| Other Citations |
2016 PTD 1675,
PLD 1997 SC 32
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)
|
| Sections |
O.XL, R.1,
Ss. 94 & 11,
S. 2(28)
|