The provisions of Sections 196 and 476 of Company Scope Provisions contained in section 196 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 were clear and unambiguous, and it sought the procedures and procedures for acquiring divisions of the directors of the Company's powers and its shareholders. A separate line was drawn between. The notification was described in detail in the present case, comprising 30% of the total assets of the assets and 48% of the company's assets, the assets were a substantial part of the company, in terms of both price and size settlement. The Ordinance of Companies was required, in accordance with the provisions contained in section 196 of the 1984, meeting specifically for approval as a business, with a fixed shareholder. Even if it was accepted that 95% of the company's shareholders had approved at the annual general meeting, the bid invitation was sought after publication of the notice, even though the approval was in no way the default plan. Was not undone. The provisions of section 196 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 expressly violate the provisions of clause (a) of section 1963 (3) of the Company Ordinance 1984 and were violated and by default It was recognized that the director was responsible for the fines. Section 196 (4) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, section 1964 states that instead of imposing the maximum penalty provided in the law, the chief executive and six directors were fined a total of Rs.350,000. Gone \ r \ n
Related judgments — Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, 2012
