HAMZA BOARD MILLS LIMITED Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in an appeal filed by Hamza Board Mills Limited against Habib Bank Limited regarding the winding-up of the appellant company. The core legal question concerns whether a winding-up order should be set aside and the company's previous status restored upon the settlement of liabilities with the petitioning bank, without clarity on the interests of other creditors. The Court held that the impugned order must be set aside and the case remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits. The key principle laid down is that while determining the restoration of a company facing winding-up proceedings after settlement with a petitioning creditor, the court must consider all surrounding circumstances, including the potential impact on and interests of other non-party creditors.
- Whether a winding-up order can be set aside solely upon the settlement of liabilities with the petitioning bank?
- Does the restoration of a company's previous status require consideration of the interests of other non-party creditors?
ORDER
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑ Mr. K.M.A. Samdani, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent No.1 Habib Bank Limited submits that appellant's Company viz. Hamza Board Mills, Limited has adjusted all its liabilities with the Bank and leaving nothing outstanding against the appellant's Company. A letter of said Bank dated 21‑6‑1999, addressed to Mr. Muhammad Saleem Sahgal, Advocate of the Company in above terms, is available on record.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants states that front the date of the impugned order dated 3‑5‑1995 till stay was granted by this Court on 17‑5‑1995 nothing had happened during above period relating to the Company's financial affairs and no transaction whatsoever was done during said period. In other words, he submits that the Company's financial rights and obligations remained the same as were on 3‑5‑1995. Learned counsel also submits that, under the circumstances, the winding‑up order of the Company is liable to be set aside and the Company is entitled to function as it was doing before. Although learned counsel has asserted as above but there is nothing on record to substantiate it. It is not clear whether other creditors of the Company would be affected of not by restoring the previous status of the Company.
3. Under the circumstances, impugned order/judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to High Court to decide it afresh on merits regarding restoring the previous status of the Company or otherwise, having taken into consideration all the circumstances and also keeping in view the interest of those other creditors of the Company, who are not party in this appeal.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in above terms.
M.H./H‑18/SC Case remanded.