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

Mian SHAHZAD ASLAM, (CEO) NAZIR COTTON MILLS LIMITED vs HOD-ADJUDICATION-I, ADJUDICATION DIVISION SECP Reglns — 2024 CLD 849 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN

Case information

Citation
2024 CLD 849 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN
Year
2024
Reporter
CLD
Parties
Mian SHAHZAD ASLAM, (CEO) NAZIR COTTON MILLS LIMITED vs HOD-ADJUDICATION-I, ADJUDICATION DIVISION SECP Reglns
Provisions referred to
S. 33---R; Companies Act (XIX of 2017); Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997)

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

Mian SHAHZAD ASLAM, (CEO) NAZIR COTTON MILLS LIMITED VS HOD-ADJUDICATION-I, ADJUDICATION DIVISION SECP Reglns. 6 & 32---Companies Act (XIX of 2017), Ss. 192, 193 & 512---Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S. 33---Regulatory requirements, non-compliance of---Company being dormant---Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) imposed penalty of Rs.150,000/= on appellant-company for its non-compliance of regulatory requirements under the Listed Companies (Code of Corporate Governance) Regulations, 2017---Contention of the appellant /company was that it had been dormant, however, non-compliances, which formed the basis for impugned order , had been complied with---Validity---Respondent/SECP vide impugned order also warned the appellant to ensure compliance in future which, though with a delay, had been done by the company---Moreover, admittedly, the appellant / company was not operational since long and was a dormant entity---The company not being operative did not absolve it from statutory compliances under the law and on that account, it was the responsibility of the management of the company to realize and decide accordingly that being a listed company it had to comply with the law as long as it appeared on the register of companies---However, keeping in view the said circumstances and considering subsequent compliance as a mitigating factor, Appellate Bench by converted the penalty imposed vide impugned order into a warning and also directed the appellant to ensure compliance of the regulatory requirements in future strictly in accordance with the law---Appeal filed by the company, was disposed of accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLD

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