Find a Lawyer

ALAMGIR ELAHI versus MESSRS ELAHI ENTERPRISE (PRIVATE) LIMITED, THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Request for Termination of Sections 305, 306 and 9 The past history of this case was that the dispute arose between the parties on disputed matters, and the three persons were appointed fraternity to resolve the dispute. Was the one who gave her the award and as a result of the said decision, there was an agreement in which no specific date was given and yet another agreement was on record which was specifically applied to the applicant. Was related to the difference made by the Chartered Accountants. And the Chief Financial Officer of the Company showed that the assets, as divided by two documents, were in fact distributed and as their statements indicate that the applicant received on the basis of the said documents. What was received was, however, stated that he sought to repay the debt he owed to the company after selling his assets. nt And when thereafter agreements in which the senior members of the family participated in resolving the dispute, then it was not an easy matter under the provisions of section 305 (e), Companies Ordinance 1984 while under the jurisdiction of the High Court. , The Companies Ordinance of 1984, was governed by section 9 of this Ordinance as far as the application was concerned under the jurisdiction of the companies, on the basis that the request was made in the relief section, no further action was taken. Can do. Its relief applicant will have to seek treatment under common law top advocates from Punch lawyer