SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. vs WASEEM MAJID MALIK art — 2025 CLD 1260 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. VS WASEEM MAJID MALIK art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---adequate and efficacious remedy---Scope---In case where there is an adequate and efficacious remedy provided by law, High Court will not exercise its Constitutional jurisdiction and collateral challenges are not allowed to sustain. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1260 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. VS WASEEM MAJID MALIK S.5---Jurisdiction of the Company Bench of the High Court---Matters arising under the Companies Act, 2017---Jurisdiction of all other courts barred---Scope---The court having jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 2017 shall be the High Court having jurisdiction in the place at which the registered office of the company is situated---Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law no civil court as provided in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or any other court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the court is empowered to determine by or under the Companies Act, 2017. Your Search returned total 35531 records from 5450 - 5500 Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1260 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. VS WASEEM MAJID MALIK art.199---Companies act (XIX of 2017), Ss. 5, 159(3) & 160---Federal government participating in the election of directors of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL), challenge to---Constitutional petition, maintainability of---adequate and efficacious remedy---Federal Government being a member of a company does not mean that it will be subject to the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Declaring the elections of directors invalid--- Under S. 160 of Companies act, 2017---Effect---The matter arose from an election notice dated 02.05.2020 issued by Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. (SNGPL) for electing its Board of Directors---The respondent filed a Constitutional petition challenging the participation of the Federal Government in these elections---The Single Judge in Chambers held that the petition was competently filed under article 199 of the Constitution because the Federal Government, being an instrumentality of the State, was amenable to the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction---Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL) filed the present appeal (ICa) challenging this finding on the point of jurisdiction---Pivotal question for determination in the present appeal was as to "Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction was competent to entertain a challenge to the participation of the Federal Government as a shareholder in the election of directors of SNGPL or whether such matters fell exclusively within the domain of the remedies provided under the Companies act, 2017"---Held: The act in question was of the Federal Government in seeking to contest an election of the Board of Directors of SNGPL---That function was quintessentially a private function being undertaken as an ordinary member of a company incorporated under the Companies act, 2017---By the mere fact that Federal government held a major shareholding in SNGPL did not mean that it became amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under art. 199 of the Constitution while performing its functions as a member of SNGPL---as a shareholder of SNGPL the Federal government had the same set of rights as other shareholders conferred by the provisions of the Companies act, 2017---The mere fact that the Federal government had ventured into corporate enterprises and purchased shares of a company did not mean that in such capacity too the Federal government was subject to the jurisdiction of a High Court---The challenge was to the set of exercise of rights, as a member, to contest an election to the office of a director of company---That right emanated from the provision of the Companies act, 2017---Simply because the Federal government was a member of a company would not clothe it with the right to maintain a Constitutional petition---The second reason as to why the impugned judgment was not sustainable was that as per section 5 of the Companies act, 2017 it was evident that the jurisdiction had been conferred on a High Court in respect of all matters arising under the Companies act, 2017---The remedy had been provided by section 160 of the Companies act, 2017 conferring power on the court to declare elections of directors invalid---That power could not be usurped under art. 199 of the Constitution as efficacious and adequate remedy had been provided by law and this aspect should have been taken consideration while holding that the Constitutional petition was competently filed---If a challenge of this nature were allowed to succeed then it would mean that in any case where a Federal government was a shareholder, a Constitutional challenge would be maintainable yet no such challenge would be competent in respect of an ordinary member of a company who was neither a Federal government, Provincial government or a local authority---The impugned judgment to the extent that it held that the subject matter of the Constitutional petition was amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court, was set aside---Consequently, the challenge to the act of Federal government to contest elections of board of directors could not be brought before the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction---The power to do so lay in the High Court exercising jurisdiction under the Companies act, 2017 only---appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1260 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. VS WASEEM MAJID MALIK art.199(1)(a)(i)---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---Functions in connections with the affairs of the Federation, Province or a local authority---The first condition stipulated in art.199(1)(a)(i) of the Constitution to engage the jurisdiction of a High Court is that the act must not only be performed by a person within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court but also must relate to functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority---Only then can the jurisdiction of a High Court be engaged to make an order directing that person to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do or to do anything he is required by law to do---Thus, the conditions contained therein must be established to exist before any order can be passed under art. 199(1)(a)(i) of the Constitution---It follows indubitably that if a person is not performing functions in connection with the affairs of Federation, a Province or a local authority, that person cannot be subjected to an order by a High Court---The distinction brought forth in art. 199(1)(a)(i) is a distinction between public and private acts of a person though he may otherwise be performing functions in connection with the affairs of Federation, a Province or a local authority---If that person is performing public functions then a High Court has the jurisdiction to make an order under art. 199---On the contrary, if that person is merely performing acts of a private nature and are private functions, then the authority of the High Court to make an order is seriously in doubt---The primary purpose of the engagement of art. 199 of the Constitution is to confer powers on a High Court in respect of functions of the State involving some exercise of sovereign or public power and not otherwise---The words "functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation" have to be read with "to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do" to ascertain the competence of a constitutional petition---Unless the function under challenge is in connection with the affairs of the Federation, no relief can be granted and the High Court's hands are constricted and restrained---Judicial review is concerned with causes of action against public authorities in the performance of their public duties---The meaning of the phrase 'performing function in connection with the affairs of the Federation' has reference to governmental or State functions involving, in one form or another, an element of exercise of public power. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1260 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. VS WASEEM MAJID MALIK art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, invoking of---Federal government being a major shareholder / member of a company---Constitutional petition, maintainability of---The mere fact that the Federal Government has ventured into corporate enterprises and purchased shares of a company does not mean that in such capacity too the Federal Government is subject to the Constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court---Mere fact that Federal government holds a major shareholding in a company does not mean that it becomes amenable to Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under art. 199 of the Constitution. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1260 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. VS WASEEM MAJID MALIK S.160---Declaring the election of directors invalid---Scope and criteria---The challenge on the basis of section 160 to declare election of directors invalid may be brought on the application of members holding 10% of the voting power in the company.

SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. vs WASEEM MAJID MALIK art — 2025 CLD 1260 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD