INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Messrs VALIBHAI
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal under Section 10 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, on the grounds of incompetency. The core legal question concerns the proper forum for an appeal against an order passed by a Company Judge: specifically, whether such an appeal lies before the Supreme Court of Pakistan or as an Intra-Court Appeal before the High Court itself. The petitioner relied on a previous Supreme Court order granting leave to appeal in a similar matter to examine the interpretation of Section 10(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Given the consent of the caveator and the existence of an identical pending matter, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine the competency of the appellate remedy. The Court further directed that the instant case be listed before the same bench hearing the related matter to ensure consistency in judicial interpretation and stayed the operation of the impugned High Court order pending the final decision of the appeal.
- Is an appeal against an order passed by a Company Judge competent before the Supreme Court of Pakistan or as an Intra-Court Appeal before the High Court?
- Does Section 10(1) of the Companies Ordinance 1984 provide for an Intra-Court Appeal against an order of a Company Judge?
- Section 10, Companies Ordinance 1984
- Section 10(1), Companies Ordinance 1984
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---In this petition, leave to appeal has been prayed against the order dated 14th October, 1999 passed by learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh whereby appeal instituted by the petitioner under section 10 of the Companies Ordinance has been dismissed being not competent.
2. Mr. A.I. Chundrigar, learned counsel for petitioner contended that this Court has already granted leave to appeal in the case of Muhammad Bakhsh v. Pakistan Industrial Credit Investment Corporation Limited and others (1999 SCM R 25) to examine the question about maintainability of the appeal filed under section 10(1) of the Companies Ordinance either before this Court or an Intra-Court Appeal before the same High Court.
3. Mr. Afsar Abidi learned counsel for caveator when confronted with the judgment relied upon by the petitioner's counsel consented for grant of leave because same question concerning interpretation of section 10(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 regarding competency of appeal before the Supreme Court or an Intra-Court Appeal in the High Court against an order passed by a Company Judge is involved in the case in hand as well.
Thus in view of the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also following the leave granting order in the case of Muhammad Baldish (1999 SCM R 25) we are inclined to grant leave to the petitioner to examine as to whether the appeal before Division Bench of the High Court against order of the Company Judge was competent or before Supreme Court or otherwise.
' Office may solicit approval of Hon'ble Chief Justice for enlisting instant case before the same Bench hearing appeal arising out of Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,535-K of 1998 to avoid possibility of contradictory decisions as identical question of interpretation of section 10(1) of the Companies Ordinance is involved in both these matters. C.M. No,139 of 2000. Notice. Pending decision of the appeal operation of impugned order passed by High Court dated 14th October, 1999 in H.C.A. No,138 of 1990 is stayed.
Cited by 3 cases
- Syed WAJAHAT HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs Messrs T.J. IBRAHIM & CO. through Official 2009 CLD 1225
- KAMALUDDIN QURESHI vs ALI INTERNATIONAL CO. 2009 CLD 784
- KAMALUDDIN QURESHIMessrs ATARA TARPAULIN AND TEXTILE INDUSTRIESFIRST 2009 PLD Supreme Court 367