M.A. JAMEEL versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)
Sections 226, 229, 473, 476 and 495 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLI of 1997), receiving or using the money received as a Section 33 security or deposit with Schedule Bank separately with Schedule Bank. Appealing penalties for non-payment of account In the examination of the Company's annual accounts of the year it was found that the Company had violated Section 226 of the Company Ordinance 1984 because of the submission of security or stock of its goods. It was not kept in a separate account with. A scheduled bank directive issued under section 4773 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 did not comply with the company's chief executive, but the executive director of the commission was satisfied, but the improper order imposed a fine of $ 10,000. Under the Companies Ordinance 95 95 1984, the chief executive of the company was also directed to confirm the outstanding balance of security deposits from the company. The Company's Legal Auditors and Scheduled Bank Validity Company were under obligation to return the security deposits to a separate account and the company failed to provide any evidence when its goods were demanded by stockists. Or no attempt was made to find it. Details on the inheritance of security deposits and the Companies Ordinance, 1984 are shown in complete disregard, in the present case, whether in writing or not, the security or deposit received. All the money should have been kept in a particular account. Compliance with Scheduled Bank Appellant under section 229 of the Companies Ordinance 1984
Related judgments — Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, 2010
