Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Trusted direct lawyer access
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.

☎ Phone and WhatsApp access ⚖ Verified lawyer directory 🔒 Secure payment
⚡ Connect with 10 Lawyers for Rs 1,000
Pay once. Open contact numbers for lawyers matching your legal need.

S.S.A. MOEED versus MESSRS EBRAHIM ALIBHAI CHARITABLE TRUST


Arbitration Act 1940 Section 30 Sales of Goods Act (III of 1930), Section 64 Customs duty and the award of money paid for sales tax, which is the object of customs duty after the agreement between the parties and the use by the plaintiff / contractor. The deal was a sales tax on the deal. After the conclusion of the agreement between the parties and the plaintiff, it was extended by the government that the sole arbitrator to pay the plaintiff / contractor money had to pay more than that due to overpayment of the contract. It is the owner's responsibility to pay the government more than the contract amount, not the contractor. The only arbitrator to be sought by the legal provisions of section 64A of the Goods Act, 1930, objected to such award and the award was ruled out. The court in the circumstances

1987 M L D 307

[Karachi]

Before Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J

MAYMAR HOUSING SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED: In re

Judicial Miscellaneous No.31 of 1986, decided on 14th December, 1986.

Companies Ordinance (XLVII of

1984)--

---Ss.121 & 134--Delay in submitting information to Registrar Condonation of--Delay of 8 days in submitting information to Registrar about registration of mortgage deed was condoned subject to payment of penalty.

Zaki Muhammad for Petitioner.

Date of, hearing: 14th December, 1986.

JUDGMENT

The Registrar has filed comments in the case and has stated that he has no objection to the extension of time applied for by the petitioner but has prayed that for the negligence the petitioner may be penalised under section 134 of the Companies Ordinance. The petitioner has explained the delay in submitting the information to the Registrar by stating that the mortgage deed which was registered on 27th July, 1986 was delivered to him on 26-8-1986 while the information was conveyed to the Registrar on 24-9-1986. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of provisions of section 121 of the Companies Ordinance the charge was to be registered with the Registrar of Companies within 21 days of the execution of the mortgage deed. Since the copy of the registered mortgage deed was delivered to the petitioner on 26--8--1986 as explained in the affidavit there was delay of about 8 days in submitting the required information to the Registrar which is unexplained. I. therefore, condone the delay but direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.500 as penalty under section 134 of the Companies Ordinance. This amount to be deposited by the petitioner in accordance with they rules. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

H.B.T./M-83/K. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
famous supreme court advocate from Muridkay lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.