Find a Lawyer

NAZIR AHMAD versus ITTEFAQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE

Section 114 and O XLI, R 1 Applicant for the Appraisal Review, have previously claimed that the High Court's jurisdiction is inherently lacking because the claim filed by the defendant is at the time of the operation of a public company and at the relevant time. Raises questions by virtue. The jurisdiction of section 86 of the Companies Act, 1913 has been exclusively given to the Company Bench of the High Court. Secondly, the applicant's lawyer questioned the exhibit on the exhibition as it was alleged that the copy was filed by the applicants from the court record of the case filed against the second defendant. Third, it requested that this be a suitable case for piercing the veil of the Inc. as it would be disclosed that the second respondent was the sole owner of the company's affairs. The first question was never raised before the trial court, the first appellate court. Gone and then the first appeal regularly; the decision cannot be reviewed in the judgment. The reasons for holding the exhibition are stated in the judgment and it has been observed that even if it is considered, It was ignored by another exhibit document that had no opportunity to be pierced. As the curtain was based on the evidence available on record the case, O XLI, R 1, there is no case for reviewing the decision in the meaning of the CPC, review application was dismissed famous high court advocate from Sangla Hill lawyer