PAK BRUNEI INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED vs ATLAS CABLES (PRIVATE) LIMITED S — 2025 CLD 1653 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation: 2025 CLD 1653 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court: Sindh High Court
Year: 2025
Reporter: CLD
Parties: PAK BRUNEI INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED vs ATLAS CABLES (PRIVATE) LIMITED S
Subject matter: Civil
Provisions referred to: S. 10---L; S. 18; Limitation Act (IX of 1908); Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908); Limitation 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

PAK BRUNEI INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED VS ATLAS CABLES (PRIVATE) LIMITED S. 10---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 18---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIX, R.1---Application for leave to defend the suit, filing of---Condonation of delay---Knowledge of company---Scope---Defendant / company sought condonation of delay in filing of application for leave to defend the suit on the plea of acquiring knowledge of pendency of suit---Validity---Knowledge of defendant / company was knowledge of its officers---Leave application for defendant / company in view of O. XXIX, R.1, C.P.C. could have been filed by company Secretary or by any Director or other principal officer of the company---Officers who eventually filed leave application for defendant / company had already filed leave application for themselves within the prescribed time---Defendant / company could not say that it did not have knowledge that it was also sued and had to file a leave application within 30 days---Fraud alleged by defendant / company was committed by another defendant and not by plaintiff / financial institution---Plaintiff / financial institution did not prevent defendant / company or its directors from filing leave application within time and could not be faulted for infighting between directors of the company---To extend limitation for leave application by defendant / company, provision of S. 18 of Limitation Act, 1908 could not be invoked---High Court declined to condone delay and leave was not granted---Application for leave to defend the suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD

2025 CLD 1438 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHIN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2017 VS BEACH LUXURY HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED, SPENCER AND COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND PHYSONS (PRIV…
2025 CLD 53 INSURANCE-TRIBUNAL-LAHOREMUHAMMAD TARIQ VS JUBILEE LIFE INSURANCE S. 77---Language of policy documents---Principle---It is mandatory requirement of law to use plain…
2025 CLD 288 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTANUNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED VS The DIRECTOR/HOD, ADJUDICATION-I, ADJUDICATION DIVISION, SECP, ISLAMABAD Ss. 156 & 167---Tak…
2025 CLD 872 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTANThe UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED VS The HOD, ADJUDICATION-I, ADJUDICATION DIVISION, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PA…
2025 CLD 435 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTANHAJRA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED VS DIRECTOR, CORPORATE SUPERVISION DEPARTMENT, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN S. 33(1)(a)---Comp…
2025 CLD 393 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTANUBL FUND MANAGEMENT LIMITED VS Ms. MOMY KAMAL Reglns. 66a(c)(i), 66a(c)(iv), 66a(d) & 66a(f)---Investing in Equity/Mutual Funds---Mis-sellin…

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