Find a Lawyer

IN THE MATTER OF: MESSRS SERVICE FABRICS LIMITED versus IN THE MATTER OF: MESSRS SERVICE FABRICS LIMITED

Under the terms of section (1) of section 158 of section 158 and section 158 of the Ordinance of 476 companies, its annual general meeting was mandated within the stipulated period, but in doing so Failed. Protection of Company Investors / Shareholders Company Ordinance 1984 was one of the main objectives of which notice was given and their interest was protected by the transfer of timely, appropriate and meaningful information only on annual and interim accounts. Could only provide information. There was a forum for investors / shareholders about the company's annual general meeting where investors could freely discuss, discuss and comment on key issues related to account approval, appointment of auditors, selection of directors, etc. The chief executive and the company's directors had failed. Protecting shareholders' interests without having an annual general meeting track record The company was also unsatisfactory in conducting annual general meetings for which the directors had already been fined, the default iteration also clarified. The company was not making any serious efforts to comply with the terms of the Annual General Meeting. Considering the financial position of the company in the relevant year, the case was relaxed and the director imposed a fine of Rs. 20,000 on each of the directors instead of imposing a fine of Rs. Was, for the purpose of not holding the annual general meeting of directors under section (4) of section 158 of the 1984 Act, the ordinance of the Chief Executive and other companies property advocate from Qambar Shahdatkot lawyer