Find a Lawyer

FIRST CAPITAL SECURITIES versus COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET) SEC, ISLAMABAD

Failure to submit Section 221 (2) and 224 Companies (General Supply and Form) Rules, 1985, R16 Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), to benefit from the purchase and sale of Section 33 Securities. That the appellant benefited from the purchase and sale transaction id as the beneficial owner of the insurance company (issuer), said that as a result of the sale transaction, the appellant had a profit of Rs. 1,157,450 00. Happened, but was not given to the issuer within the specified period in section 224 (2) of the Company Ordinance; a notice of the 1984 show was issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In order to show that the transaction benefited him, it should not be presented in favor of the commission as provided under section 224 (2) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The appellant was granted a personal hearing, but the Commission was not satisfied with the arguments of the appellant, the appellant was directed to tender Rs 822,974 to the appellant in his appeal against the order of Kami. The group claimed that the commission had mistakenly removed itself from the law stating that the joint venture agreement was not a contract for sale by the appellant, but in fact the appellant further claimed that a And the insurance company jointly offered an "option". The Venture Agreement, which he can execute two years after the date of implementation of the Joint Venture Agreement, would mean that the sale transaction was completed within two years after the expiry of Option Two, the Appellant. Claimed that the purchase and sale transaction was not processed. Company Arden famous lower court advocate from FR Peshawar lawyer