Find a Lawyer

SAHIBZADA ANWAR HAMID versus MESSRS TOPWORTH INVESTMENTS (MACAU) LTD

A III, R 2 (b), O XXIX R 1 & O XXXVII, Rr 2 (2) and 3 to submit application for a recognized agent suit leave and defense against a foreign company Later, the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Board of Directors of the company petitioned that they have filed an application under A XXXVII, R 2 (2), CPC to dismiss the order because of the defense. The leave application for was not filed by a legally authorized person. The plaintiff was excluded from the company by the trial court validity authority for settling the case on behalf of the company, either in the resolution of the board of directors or behind it in the Article of Association Wisdom when he was sued by the company. While operating, it should not be involved in unnecessary litigation, although the situation is different in the lawsuit filed against the company because the case has to be defended by an authorized competent person - the company's chief executive. In addition, the Company's Articles of Association were fully able to defend the case on behalf of the Company's Chief Executive O. III, R2 (B), a company for the purpose of CPC. Was qualified as a recognized agent. Under time constraints for appearing for leave and applying for defense, the provisions of O III, R2 (b), CPC were required to be independently limited as these provisions were beneficial and non-binding. The chief executive could have intended to protect the interests of domestic companies. Acting as a legally recognized agent, the High Court refuses to interfere with a trial order us immigration advocates from Pindi gheb lawyer