PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

MAZHAR-UL-HAQ SIDDIQUI vs HOD, ADJUDICATION DEPARTMENT-I, SECP Ss — 2024 CLD 1225 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN

Case information

Citation
2024 CLD 1225 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN
Year
2024
Reporter
CLD
Parties
MAZHAR-UL-HAQ SIDDIQUI vs HOD, ADJUDICATION DEPARTMENT-I, SECP Ss
Provisions referred to
S. 136; S. 134; Companies Act

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

Judgment text as reported

MAZHAR-UL-HAQ SIDDIQUI VS HOD, ADJUDICATION DEPARTMENT-I, SECP Ss. 134 & 136---Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations 2018, Regln.8---Extraordinary General Meeting (EOGM), holding of---Contravention, allegation of---Jurisdiction of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP)---Scope---Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) penalized the Chairman of Board of Directors of Network Limited /Company, being Chairman of the EOGM (Appellant) on complaints of three members of the Company (the Complainants)---Allegation levelled by the complainants was that the Appellant had not complied with the requirements of Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018 ('the Postal Regulations')---Appellant raised objection with respect to jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain the complaints challenging the proceedings of the EOGM submitting that the proceedings of the EOGM had never been challenged before the Court of competent jurisdiction---Validity---Under S. 136 of Companies Act, 2017 ('the Act, 2017'), the power to declare the proceedings of a general meeting invalid lie with the Court but, in the present case, the complainants approached the Commission---Though jurisdictional error is always fatal to any legal proceedings and a coram non judice order has no sanctity in eyes of the law, however, the present appeal was preferred against the impugned order passed under S. 134 of the Act, 2017, whereunder penalty was imposed on the Appellant for contravening the provisions of S. 134 of the Act and Regulations made thereunder---Hence, the contention of the appellant that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction was not tenable and the impugned order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error---Appeal was disposed of.

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English