Find a Lawyer

PRUDENTIAL INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (E&M) SEC.

Executive Director (E&M) of Sections 205, 476 (1) (A) and 484 of the Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), Section 10 and Section R323 (I) / 2002, dated 14 6 2002. The commission executive director has ordered the companies to pay Rs 75,750 on companies under section 205 (5) of the ordinance, section 205, for violating the provisions (2) of section 205 of section 205 of the ordinance. The total penalty was imposed, thus the implementation of the penalty was challenged. Jurisdiction, arguing that the executive director does not have the authority to correct the disqualified order and assign duties to the executive directors through the commission under section 146 of 2002, in accordance with section RO 323 (I) / 2002. But the Executive Director did not. Powers have been assigned to penalize Section 205 of the relevant paragraph 3 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, which stated section 3 of section R, which describes the relevant section on the nature and nature of the rules and powers. Was used by the Executive Director, Ordinance of Companies, Section 205 of 1984, Section 205 of the Companies Ordinance 1984, Section 205 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 was not included, read with section (1) of Section 476 of the Companies Ordinance 1984. Was to be imposed while sub-section (5) was to be imposed. ) Under section 475 (47) (1) (a) of the Companies Ordinance 1984 when any violation or default offense was imposed in compliance with any provision of the Ordinance, where the maximum penalty provided is 5000 Less than Rs and daily fine was less than Rs 200, option to impose fines to be used by officer in charge of registration office how to become a advocate from Talamba lawyer