STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN versus FAZAL AND SONS (PVT.) LTD
O VII, R 2, O XXI, Rr 11 (2) and 58 Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Sections 122, 123 and 129 Application for recovery of suit money Object on suit for recovery of attachment object The plaintiff / corporation ordered the amount filed against the defendant company, the petitioner filed a petition for execution of the judgment, which was not contested. The decedent attempted to attach and sell the objection to the objectioner's personal flat plain objectioner, who was the chief executive of the company responsible for the decision. It was stated that the property was verbally gifted to his daughter, before the execution proceedings, the solicitor's lawyer requested that the director / chief executive officer of a company be personally liable for the company. Not bound. The indebted company did not say that it had purchased the property from the funds of the company in which the idea for a lift would be requested. g The corporate veil theory does not mean that the shareholders should be held equally responsible to the company; the company was a separate person distinguished by the shareholders and directors and was recovered from the company; The property's chief executive could not be attached to the director so far as the facts of the gift were concerned, it was true that the donor had not submitted any registered document with the title of the lower property. But a gift was to be enforced in the manner prescribed by Islamic law, and it was necessary to confirm the gift, that the declaration of the gift by the donor, acceptance of the gift, be made by or on behalf of the donor. What happened and the donor
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
