Find a Lawyer

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

✓ براہ راست قابل اعتماد وکیل تک رسائی
ابھی وکیل سے بات کرنی ہے؟

صرف 1000 روپے میں 10 وکلاء تک کی براہِ راست رابطہ تفصیلات حاصل کریں اور کال یا واٹس ایپ کے ذریعے موزوں قانونی ماہر سے رابطہ کر کے اپنا معاملہ پورے اعتماد کے ساتھ آگے بڑھائیں۔

☎ فون اور واٹس ایپ تک رسائی ⚖ تصدیق شدہ وکلاء ڈائریکٹری 🔒 محفوظ ادائیگی
⚡ صرف 1000 روپے میں 10 وکلاء سے رابطہ کریں
ایک بار ادائیگی کریں۔ اپنی قانونی ضرورت کے مطابق وکلاء کے رابطہ نمبرز کھولیں۔

IN RE: K. M. MUNEER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, TOBACCO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, KARACHI. versus IN RE: K. M. MUNEER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, TOBACCO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, KARACHI.


Companies Ordinance 1984 Section 158 and 474 Annual General Meeting Section 158 proceeded against claiming the default meaning and connotation of the words in a written statement, in addition to this account And other related records were taken away by the FIA in connection with some cases of theft of central excise duty, such circumstances made it impossible for the company's annual general meeting to be sought within the legal period and That the company's chief executive did not enter into an agreement. Was deliberately and willfully in compliance with Section 158 and, therefore, was not compensated for any penal costs and thereby continued to be income, photostat copies of account books from the chief executive FIA. Could have asked for permission to keep. Other relevant records have been obtained by his staff and could have been updated, at least in the case of FIA's refusal. The book of calculation has been opened by his company which may have been temporary but the chief executive. None of these tasks have failed to work, with the chief executive ejecting the annual general meeting of the company, which deliberately falls into the realm of meaning and meaning of words. Will As the Chief Executive is a highly talented and experienced manufacturer, such an error could not have been foreseen in compliance with the provisions of section 158 (1) whereby the Chief Executive was fined Rs. 10,000. Was to be paid from their personal resources [words and phrases]
1987 M L D 3023

[Karachi]

Before Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui,

AZIZ KHAN--Applicant

Versus

THE STATE--Respondent

Special Bail Application No. 15 of 1987, decided on 14th April, 1987.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--

---S. 497--Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 2(s), 156(1)(8) & 159--Bail, grant of--Offence whether falling under Customs Act or Hadood Ordinance--Question which of the two laws would be applicable to offence disclosed in F.I.R. would bring the case under category of further inquiry--Bail allowed in circumstances.

Khawaja Naweed Ahmad for applicant.

Nemo for the State.

ORDER

The applicant who has been arrested for the alleged violation of Section 2 (s) read with section 156(1) (8) and section 159 of the Customs Act, has applied for bail. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the offence as disclosed in the F.I.R. does not fall under any of the provisions mentioned above. It is contended that the allegation in the F.I.R. at best constituted an offence under Hadood Ordinance for which Coast Guards Authorities are neither competent to investigate nor try the accused /appellant. Reliance in this connection is placed by the learned counsel on several unreported cases decided by the Special Appellate Court. These are: (1) 1 SpI. Cr. Bail Application No. 51/85 (Theresia Avilegation v. The State, (2) SpI Cr. Bail Appl. No. 29 of 1985 (Khuda Bux v. The State), (3) SpI. Cr. Bail Application No. 42/85 (Shamendaroz v. The State), (4) Spl. Cr. Bail Appln. No. 34 of 1983 (Taus Khan and another v. The State. In all the above-noted cases a similar contention was raised on behalf of the applicants for grant of bail and it was found by the learned Judge that in view of the doubtful position as to swhich of the two laws will be applicable to the offence disclosed in the F.I.R. the case would fall under the category of further enquiry and as such bail was granted in all those cases. Nothing has been placed before me on behalf of the State either to distinguish those cases or to persuade me to take a contrary view. I accordingly allow the application. The applicant is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. one lac with two sureties and P.B. in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

S . A . / A-193/ K Bail allowed.

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
immigration advocates email from Ugoki lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP وکلاء ڈائریکٹری

پاکستان کا لیگل ٹیکنالوجی پلیٹ فارم اور تصدیق شدہ وکلاء ڈائریکٹری جو کلائنٹس، وکلاء، لاء فرمز اور بار ایسوسی ایشنز کو آپس میں جوڑتا ہے۔

رابطہ کریں

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. جملہ حقوق محفوظ ہیں۔