Messrs GLOREX TEXTILE LIMITED, KARACHI vs Messrs INVESTMENT
This appeal was filed under Section 10 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, challenging an order passed by the Company Judge of the High Court of Sindh, which directed the winding up of the appellant company. The respondents had initiated the winding-up petition under Sections 305 and 309 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, citing the appellant's failure to pay outstanding installments despite legal notice served under Section 306. The appellant contended that it was not afforded a fair opportunity to defend the petition. The Supreme Court observed that the Company Judge had provided multiple opportunities, including three adjournments, for the appellant to engage counsel and file a reply, which the appellant failed to utilize. Furthermore, the appellant could not demonstrate any valid defense or willingness to satisfy the outstanding debt. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the winding-up order was justified given the appellant's admitted liability and failure to contest the matter despite adequate notice and procedural opportunities. The Court granted the appellant a four-week window to apply for a review, contingent upon the payment of the full outstanding amount.
- Can a company appeal a winding-up order under Section 10 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 if it failed to file a reply in the lower court?
- Does the failure to utilize granted adjournments to file a defense preclude a party from claiming they were denied a fair opportunity in winding-up proceedings?
- Is a winding-up order justified when a company admits liability but fails to pay the outstanding debt despite receiving legal notice?
- Section 10, Companies Ordinance 1984
- Order XII Rule 2, Supreme Court Rules 1980
- Section 305, Companies Ordinance 1984
- Section 309, Companies Ordinance 1984
- Section 306, Companies Ordinance 1984
- Section 304, Companies Ordinance 1984
1. ' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---This is an appeal under section 10 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) read with Order XII, Rule 2 of the Supreme court Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) against an order dated 9-9-1996 of the learned Company Judge, High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in J.M. No,155 of 1995 filed by the respondents under sections 305 and 309 of the Ordinance for winding up of the appellant Company on the ground that despite repeated demands made by the respondents from time to time the appellant had failed and/or neglected to pay the instalments on due dates and, as such, on 14-9-1994 the respondents served a legal notice on the appellant under section 306 of the Ordinance at its registered address calling upon it to pay to the respondents the outstanding amount as on 14-9- 1994 within 30 days from the receipt of the notice, which was allowed by the impugned order. The appellant has, therefore, filed the above appeal under the above provision of the Ordinance read with relevant rules.
2. ' In support of the above appeal Mr. Abdur Rahim Kazi, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the appellant was not given fair opportunity to defend the aforesaid petition under sections 304 and 309 of the Ordinance.
3. ' The leaned Company Judge has recorded the following finding against the appellant: "A public notice in respect of institution of this petition was published and a notice was issued to the respondent as well as Joint Registrar, Joint Stock Companies. While no creditor has come forward to explain his point of view, respondent company's Resident Director appeared before the Court on 26-3-1996. On his request three adjournments were granted in order to engage a counsel and to submit a parawise reply but none has been filed. On his part, Joint Registrar of Companies, Karachi has filed his comments stating that their organization has nothing to urge except that the interests of the shareholders and creditors be protected. According to the Joint Registrar, mortgages/charges on account of Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan, Karachi and Investment Corporation of Pakistan, Karachi have been registered in favour of the creditors to the tune of Rs,56,200,000 and Rs,53,250,662 respectively."
4. ' We inquired from the learned counsel for the appellant, as to whether the appellant would be ready to deposit the due amount. He was unable to give reply to the above query on account of want of instruction. However, it may be pointed out that it is an admitted position that the appellant had not paid any amount whatsoever towards its liability mentioned in the impugned order till today. The learned Company Judge has rightly pointed out that the appellant had no defence to the above winding up petition. It is also evident that a public notice was published and the required notice was served on the appellant as well as on the Joint Registrar, Joint Stock Companies. No creditor has responded to the above notice. However, the appellant's Resident Director appeared before the Court on 26-3-1996 and, thereafter, obtained three adjournments.
5. We do not find any merit in the above appeal and the same is dismissed, subject to the observation that in case the appellant agrees to pay the full due amount to the respondents, it will be open to it to apply for the review of this judgment within a period of four weeks.
Cited by 4 cases
- Netherlands Financierings Maatschappij Voor Ontwikkelinglanden N. V. 2024 PLD Lahore 315, 2024 CLD 685
- Shoaib Ullah Cheema vs Additional Registrar of Companies, S.E.C.P. etc 2019 SCP 12, 2019 CLD 227, 2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 415, 2020 P SC
- SHOAIB ULLAH CHEEMA Versus ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, SECP 2019 SCMR 306
- SHOAIB ULLAH CHEEMA & others vs ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, S.E.C.P. etc 2019 PLJ SC 434