Mrs.DILSHAD HUSSAIN vs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT And INVESTMENT
This matter originated from petitions for leave to appeal concerning the remuneration of a Liquidator appointed by the High Court for the winding-up and liquidation of a company. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was to determine the appropriate criteria and governing rules for fixing a Liquidator's remuneration. Specifically, the Court sought to clarify whether such remuneration should be structured as a fixed commission based on the sale of company assets, a fixed salary, or a combination of both, and to establish the underlying principles that should guide judicial orders in this regard. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address these issues comprehensively. While the Court rejected the prayer for an interim order, it directed that the appeals be prepared on the existing record for an early hearing and dispensed with the requirement for furnishing security. The Court emphasized the necessity of establishing clear, consistent principles for judicial oversight in the liquidation process, ensuring that remuneration is determined on a sound, equitable basis rather than arbitrary assessment.
- What criteria should govern the High Court in fixing the remuneration of a Liquidator appointed for winding-up a company?
- Should a Liquidator's remuneration be based on a fixed commission on asset sales, a fixed salary, or a combination of both?
- What are the principles that should guide judicial orders regarding the remuneration of a court-appointed Liquidator?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--These petitions were put up in connection with Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.206 of 1984 in C.P.S.L.A. No.246 of 1984 and C.P.S.L.A. No.247 of 1984, but we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Raja Muhammad Akram on behalf of the Caveator in both the petitions for leave to appeal at length and propose, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, to proceed to dispose of the petitions for leave themselves, rather than to deal with the miscellaneous matters only.
2. Leave is granted to consider the rule which should govern the High Court in fixing the remuneration to be allowed to a Liquidator, appointed by it for winding-up and liquidating a Company, namely, whether this should be in the nature of a fixed commission on the sale of the assets of the Company in liquidation or he should be allowed a fixed salary or both; as also the principles on which the orders in this respect should be founded.
3. The prayer for an interim order is rejected but the appeals shall be made ready on the present record and put up for hearing on a very early date. Furnishing of security is, however, dispensed with.
4. The parties shall also file concise statements. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.