Find a Lawyer

WASEEM AHMED SIDDIQI versus ZAFAR-UL-HAQ HIJAZI (EX-COMMISSIONER), SEC

Section 254 (6) Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLI of 1997), disqualification of section 33 audit, imposed on fines scope registrar of companies, after issuing show cause notice to applicant, fine on appointee / Fines were imposed and there was no evidence on record after acting as the company's auditor under Section 254 (6) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, which could indicate that the applicant was being issued The showcase notices were based on the sincere intention of the Commission, which upheld the Registrar's order. Companies were legally obliged to admit to any violation of the laws governing it, issuing showcase notices, approving orders and imposing fines, which were part of the legal duty that commissioners and officers commissioned Were performed by Unless the parties could provide some substantive evidence that any of them were done in bad faith, there was no reason to come to such a conclusion under section 254 (6) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The conviction can be imposed only if the appointed auditor had acted as the auditor of the company company did not present any evidence in which the applicant acted as the company petitioner's auditor. Under the Companies Ordinance, Section 254 (6) of 1984, the penalties imposed on the auditor, the company was inactive and had no audit, it was not canceled by the department under circumstances r \ n \ r. n advocate for immigration from Chaininda lawyer