UNITY MODARABA MANAGEMENT (PVT.) LTD. versus REGISTRAR, MODARABA COMPANIES AND MODARABAS
Sections 23, 24 and 42 Companies Ordinance, (XLVII of 1984), Section 305 Termination of Modarababa Company Ordinance Supply of Companies, 1984 Applicable Scope: Application for coordination of Modarababa Company primarily filed on this basis It was said that the company could not control. Recurring losses that accrued more than 99% of the subscribed amount were accepted by the Tribunal and injured Moderbaba Company raised by the Company, which was to improve the Company's affairs by the Registrar and The provisions of the Companies Ordinance 1984 1984 provisions 1984 were not allowed at any time. , Under the Moderba Companies and Moderba (Flotation and Control) Ordinance, 1980, was not followed by the Welderty Registrar, had no affiliation with any other company, with any permission or merger of the Company's companies. The ordinance provisions of 1984 could have been. Services were only performed in relation to articles not covered by the Moderba Companies and the Moderba (Flotation and Control) Ordinance 1980. In the presence of the separate, comprehensive and self-sufficient provisions of the Moderbus Companies and Moderbaba (Flotation and Control) Ordinance in 1980, the laws adopted by the Company regarding the coordination of Moderbus, the Company Ordinance, 1984, could not be taken by the Company's Directors. ? He did nothing to show his disrespect and he wasted a six-year ban. The Registrar waited too long to file a summit petition which should not have been done, a division bench of the High Court told the tribunal. Refused to interfere with the adoption order passed by the appeal. Dismiss in the circumstances
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
