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

HAJRA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED vs DIRECTOR, CORPORATE SUPERVISION DEPARTMENT, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN S — 2025 CLD 435 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN

Case information

Citation
2025 CLD 435 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN
Year
2025
Reporter
CLD
Parties
HAJRA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED vs DIRECTOR, CORPORATE SUPERVISION DEPARTMENT, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN S
Provisions referred to
S. 33; S. 231---A; S. 231; Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984); Companies Ordinance; Pakistan 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

HAJRA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED VS DIRECTOR, CORPORATE SUPERVISION DEPARTMENT, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN S. 33(1)(a)---Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) [since repealed], S. 231---Administrative (Inspection) order passed by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP)---Appeal before the Appellate Bench of SECP---Maintainability---Appellant (Textile Mills) assailed inspection order passed by the Director-Corporate Supervision Department (CSD), SECP, (Respondent) under S. 231 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 ('the Ordinance, 1984')---Validity---Impugned order was an order to inspect the books and records of the Appellant which had been passed in accordance with law---Section 33(1)(a) of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 states that no appeal shall lie against "an administrative direction given by a Commissioner or an officer of the Commission"---Exercise of powers under S. 231 of the Ordinance, 1984 was administrative in nature and limited to conducting inspection and preliminary inquiries into the affairs and books of accounts and papers of a company---If the orders passed by the Commission in terms of S.231 of the Ordinance, 1984 were subject to challenge that would paralyze functions of the Commission which would not be expected to perform its regulatory functions---It is the prime responsibility of the Commission as a regulator to collect information for effective enforcement of the laws being administered by it, and in the absence of such information, the Commission cannot be expected to make fair and impartial decisions---Therefore, it is extremely important for the regulatees /concerned persons to fully cooperate for providing such information---There was no reason to interfere in impugned inspection order---Appeal, being non-maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD

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