Messrs A.M. INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED vs AIJAZ MEHMOOD and otherss
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a company challenging the Sindh High Court's dismissal of its constitutional petition, which had upheld a District Judge's order rejecting an ejectment application against a respondent. The core legal question was whether an ejectment application filed on behalf of a company is maintainable when the person signing the application lacks proper authorization via a Board of Directors resolution or power of attorney, and when the company's name had been struck off the Register of Companies. The Supreme Court held that the ejectment application was rightly dismissed, affirming the lower courts' findings. The Court emphasized that a company whose name has been struck off the register lacks the legal capacity to initiate such proceedings, and that the absence of valid authorization for the signatory renders the application defective. Relying on established precedents, the Court concluded that the High Court committed no jurisdictional error. The principle laid down is that legal proceedings initiated on behalf of a company by an unauthorized person, particularly when the company's registration status is compromised, are not maintainable.
- Can a company whose name has been struck off the Register of Companies maintain an ejectment application?
- Is an ejectment application filed on behalf of a company maintainable if the signatory lacks a Board of Directors resolution or power of attorney?
- Does the lack of proper authorization for a signatory in legal proceedings constitute a valid ground for dismissing an ejectment application?
- Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner-company seeks leave to appeal against Sindh High Court order, dated 28-4-2003 dismissing his Constitutional Petition No,S-558 of 2002 calling into question the judgment passed by respondent No,3 i,e, learned District Judge, Karachi-Central dismissing the ejectment application brought by the petitioner against respondent No, 1.
2. Sole ground which weighed with the appellate authority under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the order of ejectment appears to be that the person who signed the ejectment application was not authorized by the Company through a resolution of the Board of Directors nor was any power of attorney executed in his favor for institution of eviction proceedings against the respondent. Learned appellate authority found that name of the petitioner-company had been struck off the Register of Companies by the Registrar Joint Stock Companies way back in 1979. In the absence of existence of a company lawfully registered, learned District Judge upon the principle of law laid down in Habib Bank Ltd. v. Zelins Limited 2000 SCM R 472, non-suited the petitioner and dismissed the ejectment application. Petitioner's constitutional petition against the said order met the same fate in the High Court, hence this petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Younus, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Mr. Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court who has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No, 1 .
4. Mr. Muhammad Younus learned Advocate Supreme Court was obliged to concede that the name of the company was struck off the Register of Companies by the competent authority vide order, dated 11-10-1979 but he vehemently contended that proceedings for restoration of the company were sub judice before the Sindh High Court in Judicial Miscellaneous No,12 of 1997 culminating in a favorable order vide judgment, dated 30-9-1998.
5. Be that as it may, since legal position is well-settled and the person who instituted ejectment proceedings on behalf of company was not duly authorized, following the principle of law laid down in Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot v. Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd. PLD 1971 SC 550 and Habib Bank Ltd. (supra), we find no legal defect or error of jurisdiction in the view taken by the High Court, which is not open to any exception.
6. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, no ground for grant of leave B is made out with the result that this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 12 cases
- Pan Islamic Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Additional District Judge and others 2022 CLC 247
- SONERI BANK LIMITED through Attorneys vs GREY PRINTERS PVT. LIMITED 2018 CLD 1183
- CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD 2017 YLRN 234
- MOINUDDIN GHORI and another vs ADMINISTRATOR OF M/S SAINT FRANCIS 2014 PLD Sindh 194
- ABDUL GHAFFAR and 6 others vs EJAZ ALI and another 2014 MLD 550
- NAJMUL ARFEEN and 6 others vs DEWAN METHARAM DHARMADAS TRUST and 6 others 2013 CLD 920
- Messrs The BRANDS through Muhammad Arshad vs RENT CONTROLLER, ISLAMABAD and 2 others 2012 CLC 825, 2012 PLJ Islamabad 97, 2012 CLD 957
- Messrs THE BRANDS vs RENT CONTROLLER, ISLAMABAD and 2 others 2012 CLC 825
- Ch. MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs RENT CONTROLLER NO,IV DISTRICT SOUTH, CITY 2010 MLD 386
- Moinuddin Ghouri and another vs Administrator of Saint Francis Church
- FAYSAL BANK LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, LAHORE vs GENERTECH PAKISTAN LTD. 2010 PLJ Lahore 536
- Adam Ali Mohammad Ali Lotia, since deceased through his legal heirs (i) 2024 SHC 648