BRIG. (RETD.) N. HUMAYUNE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (EMD) SEC
Sections 158, 245 and 246 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLI of 1997), Applicants applying Section 33 fines, who were the Chief Executives of the respective companies, in their individual capacities provided for sections 158,245 and 246 of the Companies Ordinance. The violation was fined. In 1984, the appellant failed to hold an annual general meeting according to a specific date for the calendar year, and in the other two cases, appellant failed to produce a quarterly account for the relevant year. And failed to transit. Dates On the date of the hearing of appeals for settlement of financial problems faced by the respective companies and it was claimed that the financial constraints behind their stream were the main cause and the arrangements were not intended to commit legal defaults, legal sanctions. Cannot allow economic sanctions. The excuse for violating law firms and their administration, including appellant, was well-known for its obligations under the law, and the inclusion of companies in the list of liabilities added further meaning that defaults on John Not burdensome, the appellate director had already adopted a rational view because of financial position. Companies and all directors did not impose fines, but in individual capacities imposed token penalties on appeals that they did not have to bear, nor did the company's shareholders interfere with orders to impose penalties on executive director appellants. No reason has been shown. Appeals dismissed
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
