Find a Lawyer

MIAN MUHAMMAD ILYAS MEHRAJ AND OTHERS versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, (COMPANY LAW DIVISION)

The Sections 158, 170, 171 and 477 listed companies (substantial share of voting shares and takeaways) ordinance (CIII of 2002), fail to hold the Company's annual general meeting of the Section 21 Company for which its Annual General A meeting was mandatory. Showcases notice, including the chief executive, for not meeting the company and its directors within the time set by section 158 at a meeting with the Security Department Commission's Enforcement Department, on or after 31 December 2005, the year ending 31 2004. issued. Companies Ordinance In 1984, the company's administration responded to the showcase notice, urging that some have acquired substantial shares of the company in violation of listed companies (substantial share of takeover voting shares). The ordinance was intended to contest the election of directors, held at the 2002 and 2004 Annual General Meetings: He said of the postponement arrangement that the annual general meeting endorsements in the annual general meeting choose directors only one agenda. That should not have been the basis for not having an annual general meeting for two consecutive years. An unusual general meeting specifically called for this purpose would not have violated the rights of the shareholders, nor would the administration have violated the legal requirements of the annual general meeting annually because the company would not have Shouldn't have been postponed for a reason. By not having an annual general meeting, the company's management violated the shareholders' awareness of the affairs of the company and its awareness of the conflict between the two shareholder groups. Company management annually top advocates from Mithi lawyer