Find a Lawyer

KHAN MUHAMMAD, F.C.A. versus SECURITY EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN

Sections 260 (1), 255 and 476 of section RO No. 45 (I) / 2003 dated 13 1 were read along with Sections 255 and 476 of the Security Exchange Commission of Pakistan in the notice under section 260 (1) of 2003, of the Auditor. Allegedly non-compliant. (Appellant) Section 235, Companies Ordinance, 1984 with section R No. 45 (I) / 2003, read with reference to the preparation of audit account statement of the company (its client) on 13, 2003. In which he failed to make the transition. Additional deduction amount on account recovery of fixed assets in the account of unrealized profit / accumulated loss through statement of changes in equity \ The auditor opposed the notice and heard by the commission that the adverse action against the auditor Order passed. The commission had discussed the general responsibilities of the auditors, but in any debate on the constitutional facts of the matter, no adverse action was taken against Auditor Ampug. In the NAD Order neither the auditor's default was set which was set on record nor the relevant legal provisions were identified which resulted in the auditor's conduct being violated and the facts by an unknown order The search was necessary. Liability against the Auditor Commission, because even a law firm was under the obligation to approve speaking orders, without which the auditors' duties and duties without providing the relevant facts before the parties. A general description of was provided. In random order there was an ideological consequence that had no alliance with the auditor's assignment. To clarify the error of the exact facts of the audit famous supreme court advocate from Noorpur nooranga lawyer