Companies under section 290 of the Ordinance, 1984 filed 299 and 291 in the court of share ?? Pressure maintained at the scope interc dispute company between the shareholders of the company and such dispute under section 290 of the mismanaged company ordinance. The verdict was not, 1984 was the petitioner and the respondent, two shareholders in a private company providing Hajj and Umrah services accused the applicant that the defendant added another shareholder in the company without his consent. This respondent and the new shareholder forged some documents and also forged their signatures on the company documents and bank accounts and the respondents and the new shareholder also did not follow the guidelines in relation to providing Hajj services and the Hajj quota. There may not be such allegations of unlawfully used applicants. The judgment was issued under section 290 of the Companies Ordinance 1984, as they had nothing to do with the company's affairs, which should be regulated by the court. The current dispute is, in fact, a dispute between the applicant, the defendant and the new shareholder court section 290. Was under 291 dispute of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 could not be considered. The repression and mismanagement under section 290, 1984 of the Companies Companies Ordinance by the applicants was not declared, the application was not retained under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. In such cases and consequently excluded
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
