Find a Lawyer

HASSAN AFTAB, EX-DIRECTOR, HASHIMI CAN COMPANY LTD. versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (EMD) SEC;

Sections 227, 229, 472 and 473 Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLIl of 1997), Section 33 Employees 'irregularities in the payment of contributions to the Provident Fund Implementation of the Employees' Provident Fund, a part of which They were severely cut. Received salary, there was a sacred trust with the appellant companies and its trustee company and its officers acknowledged in their petitions that the company was unable to contribute to the provident fund record, the company did the same. , Its officers and directors were violating the circumstances. Submission of an account by the company with sub-section (3) of section 227 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, shall not be equivalent to excluding the company from its defaults, nor can it be argued that on behalf of the Commission Delays in taking notice of such defects will be suspended by the culprits. Not acceptable that the company's compensation and designated directors were not liable for infringement. Through the company, Ted has made no distinction between the designated directors and other directors, including appellant, who was executive director and trustee of the company. They violated section 227 (3) of the Companies Ordinance 1984. Over time, the management of the company was properly imposed and all powers related to it were exclusively placed on the Board of Directors, in which case it was collectively responsible for the management, unless the law Do not expressly suggest otherwise that the appropriate showcase notice was not issued to the appellant company, a notice to the companies under section 472 of section 472 of the Ordinance 1984 family advocate from Pannu aqil lawyer