Sections 263, 290 and 292 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. VII, R 11 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Articles 42 and 54, declarations, permanent injunctions and injunctive As the defendants were grouping together for the benefit of the company. That the plaintiff was relinquished as a director's powers and duties. That the defendants had closed the company's factory. That the bank accounts could not be operated according to the rules of the strategy. The salaries of the employees were not paid. That the defendants transferred the company's production to its operations. And in this case, if the defendants were not controlled, then the irreparable loss and loss would reach the company, its shareholders and the directors, including the plaintiff. This plaintiff claims that the recipient has been appointed to seize the plaintiff's application under the O. VIII, R11, CPC, and because the plaintiff has sued section 263, 290 of the Company Ordinance 1984 And falls in the 292 circle. , Before he could not be called upon by the High Court Company Judge to inquire into the affairs of the company, he could be treated properly, therefore, he was treated under section 263 of the Companies Ordinance. It cannot be said that the defendants were not the Director of Company Supply under the Section 290 of the Ordinance, cannot be applied to resolve disputes between the parties as it has been held that the rights of majority shareholders are oppressed. In order to prevent and prevent repression, the main purpose was to demand that the plaintiff raise disputed questions of fact. Oh who
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
