MIAN SHAHZAD ASLAM versus COMMISSIONER (CLD), SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN
Statement of wrong half yearly accounts by the Company for the relevant period filed in the Commission under the provisions of section 33 Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Sections 245 and 492 of the Company Ordinance, 1984 Had to do Reviewed by auditors who explicitly stated that the opinion of the auditors of the accounts was not inconsistent with the opinion of the former auditors, who had never issued a revision report on the accounts of the company, which had stated its authenticity. I was born with a lot of anxiety. The accounts filed with the Commissioner of Commissions (CLD) approved the uncontested order and the chief executive officer fined Rs 500,000 and the company's directors were fined Rs 50,000, but claimed The penalty was too much. Strict, which can be set aside under the provisions of section 492 of the Companies Ordinance, 1 984, strictly prohibits a company from making false statements or excluding any material fact from being considered material. Was gone In the case, the directors had tried to circumvent the legal terms of submitting legitimate half-yearly accounts; the directors had tried to mislead regulators, shareholders and others. Regardless of the directors 'negligence submission to the lenders' half-yearly accounts, the discipline cannot be accepted as an excuse to deceive the need to comply with any regular regulation. Under Section 492 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, an authoritative default was established which was committed by the appellant / directors and it was imposed on the chief executive officer and the directors.
Related judgments — Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, 2013
