Find a Lawyer

CENTRAL COTTON MILLS LIMITED versus NAVEED TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED

Companies Ordinance 1984 Section 76 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), AXXXXXX, RRL, 2 and Section 11 Race Judiciary, Declaration, Permanent Order Removal and Forfeiture of Transfer of Claim Acquisition for Correction of Registers of Members Applying the Rule of Law Prior to this, there was an order of the court that allowed the plaintiff to interfere with the transfer of shares of the plaintiff, Section 76, Ordinance of Companies, 1984 to prevent the plaintiff from exercising their voting rights. Was found to be in violation of the provisions of. The holding of the plaintiff's shares, although not applicable to the decision of a contentious application from a strict judicial standpoint, must be drawn to broad principles where it was shown that the matter was finally heard by the competent court between the parties. And has been decided. Earlier, there was no warrant for finding that the application was not in principle restricted by the transfer of the disputed shares of the plaintiff to the judiciary or its jurisdiction, illegal, illegal and company ordinance, 1984. Found in violation of the Memorandum and Article Association of Company provisions, the plaintiff made a suitable case for the grant. In order to prevent the voter from exercising the right to vote in connection with the plaintiff's shares, the balance of the injunction was in favor of the defendant's injunction against the defendant, however, he was not allowed to exercise his right to vote on the underlying shares. Was not allowed to use voting in relation to these shares, even though the defendants were family advocate from Pasni lawyer