MUBARAK TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED versus DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)
Sections 231 and 232 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLI of 1997), Section 33 govern the Company's Annual Account Retention Examination for the relevant period to the auditors' opinion of the Company's financial statements and its financial status. The appeal against the order revealed that the auditors, in their reports related to the relevant accounts, had disputed the opinion and that the financial statements of the financial statements of the company, its cash flows in its loss / profit, were accurate and fair. The idea is not found. The statement of charges in the Equity, together with the Note, form part of the respective financial years, the Company Directors in its report provide satisfactory, complete, satisfactory and complete information regarding the members to the relevant Annual Accounts and Failed to explain. Or Negative Remarks / Report details of the relevant auditors of the Settlement of Assets indicate that the Company had destroyed all of the plant and machinery which the Commission's annual general in exercise of the authority granted under Section 231 (1). The meeting was beyond the authority of the shareholders in the director (enforcement). Under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, the Company's accounts and books and paper books were authorized to be inspected, and the Company appealed against the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act's Security Order Section 33 (1) (a). Filed 1997, provided that no appeal is contrary to the administrative directive given by the Commission or an officer of the Commission under Section 231 of the Commission Ordinance, 1984, which was administrative in nature and limited to inspection. And the company
Related judgments — Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, 2014
