MD SADEQUL ISLAM, EX-CEO versus DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)/ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKI
Sections 226, 229 and 473 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLI of 1997), the use of money received as Section 33 security and the enforcement of the Appeal Commission on fines, while the Appellant Company's annual audit for the relevant fiscal year. Checked-out accounts were observed. The Securities Deposit Securities and Exchange Commission disclosed the money against the recipients of the micro-credit, the letter advised the company to present proof of compliance with section 226 of the Companies Ordinance 1984, under which the company Can't use the money received. After hearing the security representative's authorized representative and the company's written submission, it was discovered that the company had failed to provide any information / documentation regarding compliance with the provisions of section 226 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 And the company has been fined on appeal. The company had filed against the undisclosed order er the record stated that the companies had not received any money as security and the deposit was not received from the lenders under section 226 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. In fact, 10% of the micro credit loan provided to each lender was withheld and used in settlement of the final installment. Presentation of liabilities or pledges made by the lender with a resource - can be used in the event of a failure of the underlying obligation, which can best be considered as a margin and It cannot be done by any means. The title of the security or deposit account is considered as the company account
Related judgments — Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, 2014
