INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES & SYSTEMS LTD. versus INTERCONNECT PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Sections 305 and 314 (4) of the Petitioner's petition for the company to be consolidated have, however, demonstrated the existence of a justification for the successful summons, keeping in view the fact that the company is fully functioning. And it started some very important projects. Which was being put into practice and a considerable amount of money, through direct foreign investment, the company had arranged to run and complete the aforementioned projects, and that was not due to the wind up order Shareholders face prejudice. In the case of the company and the persons dealing with it, including the applicants and possibly the company's creditors, the High Court found the case appropriate where the court found that under section 314 (4) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 Want to use your options so they can pass. Order which may result in the disposal of the applicant's complaint without the Company being ordered to be summoned to the High Court; in the circumstances, the order to provide a replacement for the order has been ordered, which may potentially continue the Company's existence as a viable entity. The Ordinance, while considering the terms of the Order under Section 314 (4) of the High Court, discussed the cost of the Company's shares, independently of the Applicant and the Chief Executive of the Company (as such Non-negotiable agreement between the parties) and the terms of the order were laid under Section 1414 (()), Companies Ordinance, 1984.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
