Find a Lawyer

SYED SHAFQAT HUSSAIN versus SYED SHAFQAT HUSSAIN LAHORE

Sections 152 and 9 (3) of a promoter director of a Power of Court company to correct the Company's registry of company procedures alleging that on the way to the calendar and suspicious transactions it was shown that he had resigned from the directorship and Its shares have been transferred to another director. Through the fraudulent and fraudulent transfer proceedings and related provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 was also not complied with and the registrar of companies was the result of a return fraud filed with evidence of a change in shareholding pattern. , The provocative director's trial was not independent. Some difficulties when he sought to restore his name to the register of members of the company after resolving his claim that he was cheated, such as only after allowing the parties to hear the dispute and add to the evidence. Can be resolved without the commission's allegations of fraudulent and fraudulent documents framed by the provocative director, of the filing and recording of such evidence under the directors set forth under the Companies Ordinance, Ag Ag 1984 under Since it was not a fine, the High Court advised that it had the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Refer to the court and in the case of adjudication, he may decide the matter. You can always refer to the High Court under section 152 of the Ordinance with the FBR correction of similar prayer of the company registrar. best advocate from Saidu Sharif lawyer