Find a Lawyer

PUNJAB OIL MILLS LIMITED versus DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT), SECP

Sections 74, 473 and 476 of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), Section 31 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLI of 1997), responded to the complaint against the Company for not transferring certain shares in the name of section 33 complaints. The complaint against the appellant company against the appellant company's failure to transfer some of the shares in the name of the petitioners was that the shares were disputed shares and the matter was presented by the appellant company before a court of law. The arguments made were dismissed before the court. The company, its chairman, vice chairman, chief executive and director fined and directed the company to transfer the shares in the name of the complaining company. The impugned order passed by the Moderba Tribunal was, in the circumstances, approved in the event of a breach. First, whether the participant in the questionnaire was brought by the complainant through the System of Stock Exchange and in accordance with its rules and regulations. And second, whether the steel order was enforceable or not, when the invalid order was approved, the second issue seemed quite clear and controversial because the order passed by the Moderba Tribunal was in force when the defective order was granted to the appellant company. Was approved by the parent company. In the name of the complainant, the transfer of the shares was, in the circumstances, against the stay order issued by the Modarba Tribunal. In the first case, the complainant was unaware of the exact nature of the matter, even though it said that the share complainant had Through the System of Stock Exchange top civil advocates from Rahwali lawyer