Dr. AMIR BUX CHANNA vs ISRA ISLAMIC FOUNDATION (GUARANTEE) LTD — 2023 CLD 691 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Dr. AMIR BUX CHANNA VS ISRA ISLAMIC FOUNDATION (GUARANTEE) LTD. S. 286---affairs of company---Coram to file application---Threshold of 10% of membership---application was filed by two members which met the criteria but one petitioner withdrew and a new member was inducted---Objection was raised by respondent to maintainability of application---Validity---Maintainability of application was to be judged on the day it was presented---after withdrawal of one member it was cured by a bona fide attempt when a new member was added as co-petitioner---application was maintainable in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 CLD 691 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Dr. AMIR BUX CHANNA VS ISRA ISLAMIC FOUNDATION (GUARANTEE) LTD. Reading down, principle of---Applicability---Principle of reading down is applied when a provision is capable of more than one interpretation and one or more of those interpretations would render the other provisions either redundant or illusory or in conflict with main frame of the Statute---In such cases, Courts read down the provision in a manner that saves the provision. Citation Name: 2023 CLD 691 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Dr. AMIR BUX CHANNA VS ISRA ISLAMIC FOUNDATION (GUARANTEE) LTD. Ss. 7(1) & 30---Foundation formed under the Companies Law---Vacancies of university, filling of---Nomination and appointment---Distinguished---Respondent university was a private institution and petitioners assailed its affairs regarding filling of vacancies, number of its members and finances etc.---Validity---Fundamental difference between nomination and an appointment was that the former represented interest of the nominating authority and was to serve at its pleasure whereas the latter was in relation to an independent position and was to serve in accordance with terms and conditions of the post to which he or she was appointed---Private universities are regulated and governed but cannot be taken over---Respondent university was a statutory body but it remained a private university (since it had been established by the Foundation and not the State) and did not perform any sovereign functions though operate and function within the frame of Isra University Act, 1997---Superior Courts have consistently refused to issue writs of quo warranto to private universities even though they were established through statutes---If High Court was to approve nomination of Chancellor by the Foundation, subject to approval and appointment by Board of Governors of University, it would amount to rewriting S. 7(1) of Isra University Act, 1997---There was no such requirement in S. 7(1) of Isra University Act, 1997, or any other provision as the same would destroy the distinction between 'nominate' and 'appoint' that had been intentionally created by the Legislature in Isra University Act, 1997 and every person to be nominated under the Isra University Act, 1997, would then also have to be appointed by the Board of Governors---This would necessitate rewriting of all provisions that related to nominated posts under Isra University Act, 1997 and defeat the purpose and intent of Isra University Act, 1997, which was to provide the Foundation a role in the affairs of the University through Chancellor and instead would make the foundation subservient to the Board of Governors---Such appointment of Chancellor would destroy the very fabric that had distinguished nomination and appointment---High Court restored the Foundation to its original members as it stood in year 2011 prior to induction of new members---High Court declared that the council so restored would be at liberty to amend Memorandum and Articles of Association and consequently induct any or as many member council as the amended Articles permitted---High Court directed that the restored council would announce a date of meeting for nominating a Chancellor and until then Registrar of University was to perform daily functions in routine; that audit of Foundation (IIF) would be conducted for last ten years and claim of rent was neither illegal nor illogical but should be fair as far as quantum was concerned---Application was allowed accordingly.

Dr. AMIR BUX CHANNA vs ISRA ISLAMIC FOUNDATION (GUARANTEE) LTD — 2023 CLD 691 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLD