RAMZAN SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus MIAN MIRAJ-UD-DIN

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J‑‑‑ These three petitions for leave to appeal (Nos.913‑L/94, 919/94 and 934‑L/94) are directed against similar interlocultory orders dated 18‑8‑1994 and 20‑8‑1994 passed by the learned Company Judge, Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Original Petitions No.97/1994, 79/1994 and 96/1994. We propose to dispose them of through this single judgment.

2. The facts relevant to these petitions, briefly stated, are that the present respondents (excluding the last respondent) filed Civil Original Petitions No.97/1994, 79/1994 and 96/1994 against the present petitioners and the last respondent i.e., the Corporate Law Authority, Islamabad, before the Company Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore praying that "the Company Bench may order the Respondent Corporate Law Authority to appoint an Inspector with the direction that a Report be prepared on all aspects indicated above with a view to collect incriminating evidence so as to enable it to initiate prosecution in terms of section 270 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Any other relief deemed appropriate to the peculiar facts of this case be also afforded. " Alongwith the main petitions, the present respondents filed Civil Miscellaneous Applications for interim relief to the following effect: ‑‑

"(i) In exercise of powers under section 292 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, the incumbent Chief Executives be relieved and in their place provisional Chief Executives be appointed to facilitate the process of investigation.

(ii) Subject to the final decision of the pending section 265 Application, Corporate Law Authority be directed to appoint an Inspector to conduct investigation into the affairs of the Company so that the evidence currently available which may not so remain available for long may be produced before it.

(iii) Any other interim relief deemed appropriate to the peculiar facts of this case be also afforded."

3. The learned Company Judge, vide order dated 18‑8‑1994 declined the request for the removal of the Chief Executives and appointment of Inspectors to conduct the investigation. Instead, he appointed Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Butt, Advocate, as a Local Commissioner to inspect the factory premises, prepare an inventory about the quantity of stocks of sugar present in the factory and also check the record of the stock books of accounts available in the factory and put his authenticated signatures on each page. This order was passed subject to notice to the present petitioners.

4. It so happened that on 20‑8‑1994, the present respondents presented applications at the residence of the learned Company Judge at Lahore, who passed the following order on the same day:‑

"Presented at my home. In view of the allegations, the Local Commissioner shall immediately check at the spot. If the bags are being removed, he may take steps to stop it, including sealing the premises. Law enforcing agency and magistrate shall cooperate with him in full.

To report on 22‑8‑1994."

Hence these petitions.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submitted that‑‑

(i) the petitioners have been condemned unherard;

(ii) on 10‑8‑1994, the same learned Judge in Chambers had refused interim relief in similar Civil Original Petitions No.67/1994, 72/1994, 75/1994, 79/1994 and 80/1994, but on 18‑8‑1994 and 20‑8‑1994 he granted the interim relief to the present respondents, and as such the impugned orders suffer from conflict of decisions and also amounted to the reviewing of the order dated 10‑8‑1994;

(iii) the material on record was not sufficient enough to warrant as ex parte order of an extreme nature which tantamounts to final decision of the main petitions in favour of the present respondents.

The learned counsel also relied on the provisions of section 265 read with sections 263 and 264 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 to contend that the learned Company Judge had no authority to appoint Local Commissioner to inspect the factory premises, prepare inventory of the sugar stocks and seal the premises.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned orders.

7. Not only the Civil Original Petitions but also Civil Miscellaneous Applications in which the impugned orders have been passed "subject to notice" are pending decision before the learned Company Bench of the High Court. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners require deeper appreciation of the facts and relevant law and also clear cut findings by this Court on merits of the case. To avoid the expression of opinion on facts and law, least it may prejudice the case of either party and influence the mind of the Court seized of the matter, the Supreme Court normally declines to interfere with the interim orders in exercise of its discretionary powers under Article 185 (3) of Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Non‑interference with the interim orders passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction is a "Rule" and interference is an "Exception". We do not see any compelling reasons to depart from the well‑settled rule. Furthermore, the impugned orders are subject to the opportunity of hearing to the present, petitioners. It is open to the learned Company Judge to vacate the interim orders passed by him on 18‑8‑1994 and 20‑8‑1994. He' can also modify the interim orders granted by him. The petitioners can raise the points/objections/grounds taken by them in these petitions, before the learned Company Judge at the time of hearing of the Miscellaneous Applications. The learned counsel for the petitioners have also an opportunity to address the learned Company Judge before any final order is passed on the Miscellaneous Applications.

8. For the reasons stated above, leave to appeal is refused in all the three petitions and the same are dismissed with the observations that the petitioners may appear before the learned Company Judge of the Lahore High Court. Lahore and oppose the grant of interim relief there. The Company Judge, of course, would attend to the objections/arguments of the petitioners and decide the same on merits. The interim order dated 23‑8‑1994 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers, lapses automatically.

M.B.A./R‑241/S Petition dismissed.