Find a Lawyer

IN THE MATTER OF: MESSRS DIN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED versus IN THE MATTER OF: MESSRS DIN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED

Complaints of Sections 74, & 77 & 6 476 relating to non-receipt of shares after successful voting of shares, but since she was out of the country, she could not contact the company and after returning, took issue with the company. However, after they were told that its shares had been transferred to another shareholder, the complainant requested that it be denied their rights. Allotment of shares and consequently any profit / bonus shares issued by the Company from time to time in this section without interruption. Under the provisions of subsection (I) of section 74 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, the shares were not disposed of within ninety days. Any strong argument in support of the failure to transfer the shares in the name of the complainant. The Company, which was the legitimate owner of these shares, also failed to identify any defect or error in the transfer instrument listed by the complainant Prima Fax provisions under sub-section (1) under section 74 of the Companies Ordinance, Delay in transfer of shares was violated; the Companies Ordinance 1984 attracted the constitutional provisions contained in section (2) of section 74. Was paid a fine of Rs 100 every day during which the default directors, the company's chief executive and others were held responsible under the penal provisions for which each of the directors and chief executives were charged every day. Instead of a fine of Rs 5,000, a fine was imposed. famous supreme court advocate from Tando Jam lawyer