MUHAMMAD SULEMAN KANJIANI versus DADEX ETERNIT LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Section 42 and 54 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. XXXXX, Rr 1, 2, the suit for a permanent injunction contained in the application was twofold; first, whether in these circumstances the defendant's capital in the non-payment of profit The company's directors may be asked to pay the company's funds, justifying the court's interference in the internal affairs of the company, and whether the plaintiff came even after the budget and the annual accounts were approved. Including such capital expenditures, they waived their right to object so that the defendants relied on record documentary evidence to prove that all such capital expenditures were unanimously agreed by the Board of Directors. In order to justify the costs of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs / applicants who set up a new factory did not question its capital expenditures nor charged the company with funds to wrap up capital expenditure in the central suit, nor did it alone. Examples have provided documentary evidence which shows that the costs incurred did not reflect the actual purchase / expenditure, although one of the plaintiffs was not only a Chartered Accountant by profession, but also the head of the Audit Committee. Otherwise, the company's directors were accused of defrauding the company's funds at the command. He did and does not guarantee the investigator or investigators on bald allegations. , Unless supported by documentary evidence or fraudulent means that the Company's funds are covered by capital expenditures.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
