Find a Lawyer

NORTHERN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT (PVT.) LTD versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (COMPANY LAW), SEC

Sections 263, 264, 279 and 290 Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), the appointment of an inspector to investigate the affairs of section 33 company is against the number 2 and 3 of such appointing respondents who hold 35% stake in it. Holders are shareholders of the company. Filed under section 290 of the Ordinance of Companies, 1984 for the appointment of an inspector for the investigation of the case of the Company Local Commission, from time to time due to financial mismanagement and high court directives due to management of the company, corporate as well as the company. , Which is also recommended for detailed investigation. The need to present the record made by an investigating agency, exchange of facts, trial history and allegations between the parties, has affirmed the High Court's decision that the company's affairs need to be examined in detail, The records, witnesses, and evidence could not be inspected. It requires time, effort, knowledge of corporate law and any court-ruling officer, and with financial and administrative irregularities in the most fair and independent review of a company's internal operations, investigative skills and expertise and disputes. As well as violations of rules and regulations that fall under the jurisdiction of the Commission. That the Executive Director (CLD) was not given the powers of appointment of Inspector under Section 263 of the Companies Ordinance 1984, as he was told that the Commission through Section R 1061 (1) / 2005 dated 18 10 2005 It was clearly handed over to the power that the Appellant's position was that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 did not have the power to vote 10% in the company and request for appointment of Inspector. immigration advocates from Haripur lawyer