Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ARIF versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (COMPANY LAW DIVISION) SEC

Sections 245 and 476 Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLI of 1997), Failure to prepare and submit Section 33 Quarterly Accounts, Implementation of Penal Appellant Applicant Company 31 12 2004 and Second Quarter Ending Third Quarter Failed to prepare and present quarterly accounts for the quarter. 31 31 2005 At the end of 2005, the Commission imposed a fine of Rs 100,000 on each of its six directors and on the past record of the appellant company's own executive it was shown that its management was in the habit of complying with legal requirements. I was not that kind of behavior was unacceptable. The management of a listed company and its affairs was assigned to the overall management of the company, the Board of Directors Commission, in the event of repeated violations of the law to the company's chief executive and directors. The punishment was given, it cannot be argued. That the directors were not deliberately responsible for the defaults because they were fully aware of the facts and duties, by law, it was decided that the company should be given more time to comply with the requirements and the company's chief executive Even in the light of the past record of the US, no power will be raised, after his return there was no restriction on meeting the requirements of the law. Absence of staff required to prepare accounts abroad cannot be a basis for non-compliance with the requirements of the law female advocates from Nawab Shah lawyer