MUHAMMAD AKRAM SHAIKH versus PAK LIBYA HOLDING COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER
Article 12 (2) and AXXIII, R 3 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908), Article 181 Fraud and Misrepresentation Parties who did not sign the Memorandum of Understanding indicated on the request that they agree to the court. Was not a party to the motion and the person who signed the agreement before the court was not a party to the proceedings before the petitioner submitted by the court was that the application was banned. ? Individuals who were not parties to the settlement should not be bound and the court cannot enforce the agreement against them, including persons other than the parties. In this case the parties were in agreement, it could not be listed unless such persons were made a party to the case as the newly added directors of the company had accepted full responsibility and the defendants too. When signing a compromise, therefore, instead of rejecting the order and completing the pursuit of justice, it would be appropriate to state that the order had no binding effect on the applicant and the remarks. Mineral Respondents and it will be deemed to have been granted only against those who agreed to compromise on the request, no limitation can be made against the invalid order, as the Company's original This order was rejected by the directors against the fact, therefore, the objection was banned on the basis of which the application was made, even otherwise the applicant had requested the information in his request. News published in a newspaper on 21 6 2007
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
