Appeal No.131 of 2003, decided on 31st January, 2006. Versus Appeal No.131 of 2003, decided on 31st January, 2006.

SYED SULTAN AHMED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)--- Messrs Oil & Gas Development Corporation Ltd. which is a Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 has filed the instant appeal through Muhammad Ilyas Mian, Advocate, memorandum of appeal has not been signed by anyone except the said learned Advocate. However, one Aijaz Muhammad Khan claiming himself to be Manager, Legal Services of the appellants annexed his affidavit deposing therein that he was competent to file the instant appeal. Vakalatnama of Muhammad Ilyas Mian, Advocate has also been signed by the said Aijaz Muhammad Khan. On the last date of hearing i.e. 2-1-2006 the document proving authorization of the above-named Aijaz Muhammad Khan to engage counsel and to file appeal on behalf of OGDCL which is a limited company was called as nothing in proof thereto was annexed with the appeal. Today neither any authorized person on behalf of the appellants has appeared nor Muhammad Ilyas Mian, Advocate is in attendance. However, the office of Assistant Registrar has received an application signed by the latter seeking adjournment.

2. It is admitted fact that the appellants are independent entity being Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 9984. It was mandatory that Aijaz Muhammad Khan, Manager Legal Services should have been authorized to file this appeal by a resolution passed by Company's Board of Directors in a meeting ,of Directors duly convened. There is no material, whatsoever, available on record to this effect and for this obvious reason such material was called from the appellants but none appears on their behalf to produce any document, if any, to this effect. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the instant appeal has not been competently and authorisedly filed and at the same time the appearance of Mian Muhammad Ilyas, Advocate A claiming himself to be counsel for the appellants is without any legal authorization. For this obvious reason to wait for his appearance and adjourning the appeal on this score would be a futile exercise. The dictum of law laid down in Government of, Pakistan v. Premier Sugar Mills (PLD 1991 Lah. 381) provides an illuminating guideline in this behalf. The relevant passage from this judgment is reproduced below:--

"It is well-settled that when a company institutes a suit, it has to establish that the suit has been competently and authorizedly instituted on its behalf. The rigour of this principle is to the extent that even a person incharge of the affairs of the company unless specifically authorized in this regard is not considered competent to initiate proceedings on behalf of the corporate entity. In Iftikhar Khan of Mamdot v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd., Lahore, reported as PLD 1971 Supreme Court 550 it was held that a suit on behalf of Company by a person (Director Incharge of Company) is not competent unless he is so authorized by a resolution passed by Company's Board of Directors in a meeting of Directors duly convened. In the light of the above principle that the suit had not been competently filed the appeal before the Supreme Court was allowed and the objection as to the invalid institution of the suit was upheld."

3. The irresistible conclusion that flows from the above discussion is that the instant appeal has not been competently and authorizedly filed. The claim of Mian Muhammad Ilyas, Advocate that he is counsel for the appellants is also bereft of any lawful authorization. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed as such. No order as to costs.

4. All concerned be informed.

5. Announced.

C.M.A./223/Tax (Trib.) ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.