Find a Lawyer

IN THE MATTER OF: MESSRS HASEEB WAQAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED versus IN THE MATTER OF: MESSRS HASEEB WAQAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED

Failure to hold an annual general meeting on a fine company under the provisions of Sections 158 and 476 Companies, Section 158 (1) of 1984, was necessary to hold its annual general meeting on or before the specified year, But the company, the chief executive and the directors, failed to say that by not holding the annual general meeting, the shareholders were losing the views they had about their powers, the constitutional organization's annual The General Meeting was a forum where boards, executives and shareholders were all involved. The company has annual accounts and promotes shareholders with its performance in order to reflect on the company's key issues. Company auditors were appointed by shareholders and, if necessary, various legal options were also exercised; this was a basic requirement that required annual holding. In the present case, the timeframe in the company failed to comply with the general meeting mandate in the company, and the company's representative provided that the annual general meeting could not be made due to the company's law requiring the majority shareholders and the controversial occupation. The Annual General Meeting at the Convention cannot be proved as not being the default. Deliberately, the company / fine was also fined Rs. 50,000 / - and the regular default was fined Rs. 2,000 per day, accordingly the company's chief executive and each director. \ R \ n \ r \ n online advocate from Tando Allahyar lawyer