MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus ARBOR ACRES PAKISTAN LTD.
1. This is a petition under Section 305 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, for winding up of the company, namely M/s. Arbor Acres, Pakistan Limited, the respondent and appointment of Liquidator on the ground that the respondent company has been unable to pay its debts. It is claimed that the respondent failed to pay the dues of the petitioner No. 1 amounting to Rs. 70,959.22 and of petitioner No. 2 amounting to Rs. 65,336 in spite of service of notice dated 29‑1 1986.
2. It is stated, at the bar, by Mr. Obaidur Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioner, that after filing the petition the respondent has paid the dues of the petitioner No. 1 in full but the respondent has paid only Rs. 5,000 towards the dues of the petitioner No. 2. Mr. Obaidur Rahman has pointed out that on 1‑3 1987, Mr. Shahudul Haq, Advocate for the respondent, had filed an application praying for excusing the unconditional absence of the Managing Director of the respondent‑company and seeking a direction to the petitioner No. 2 to contact the relevant branch of respondent‑company for finalization of his accounts to enable the respondent company to pay his actual dues. In this application in para. 5 thereof, the respondent company has stated as follows:‑
2. "As regards the records of the petitioner No. 2, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner No. 2 for reasons best known to him is not serious to contact the relevant branch of respondent company for the finalization of his accounts and therefore, after the first payment of Rs. 5,000/‑ made to him further payments could not be made to him (petitioner No. 2)".
3. It is submitted that there is thus admission of the liability and that only finalization of account is claimed: It is further pointed out by Mr. Obaidur Rehman that on 26‑4‑1987, while hearing the main petition, the following order was passed:‑‑
4. "3. Mr. S. M. Shahudul Haq states that the company has already paid to petitioner No. 1 about Rs. 65,000 and a very little amount is left to be paid. He further states that the company has also paid Rs. 5,000 to the petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 2 is not coming forward to settle the account. I am not concerned with that. The company should further deposit the amount in this Court, if it is able to pay its debt or submit a statement of account showing the amount due and deposit that amount in Court. Mr. Haq requests for one month's further time. Mr. Obaidur Rahman opposes the request on the ground that time has been granted several times. However, in the interest of justice, I allow one month's time but this is final.
5. To come up on 27th May, 1987"
6. It is submitted that the respondent company has neither deposited the amount in Court nor submitted the statement of account showing the amount due and depositing the same within one month in spite of time of one month being granted to respondent in the interest of justice at the request of Mr. Shahudul Haq and in spite of opposition of Mr. Obaidur Rehman.
7. In my opinion, the amount claimed or the amount, which according to the respondent was due, should have been deposited in Court by 25‑5‑1987. Now 1 more than seven months have passed yet neither the amount has been deposited in Court nor any statement of account has been filed.
8. Under the circumstances, I have no alternative but to conclude that the company is unable to pay its debts. I. therefore. order winding up of the company and appoint the Official Assignee as Official Liquidator. However, at the request of Mr. Shahudul Haq and with the consent of Mr. Obaidar Rahman, I direct that C this order shall take effect from 1‑3‑1988 and if the amount due is deposited by that date this order shall not come into operation.
9. M.Y.H./M‑491/K
10. Petition allowed.