OILBOY (PVT.) LTD. vs PAK QATAR INVESTMENT (PVT — 2025 CLD 852 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

OILBOY (PVT.) LTD. VS PAK QATAR INVESTMENT (PVT.) LTD. O.XIV, R.1(6), O.XV, R.1, O.XII, R.12 & O.XXXVII, Rr. 1, 2---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 31---Judgment on admission---Admission in pleadings abolishing the need for further proof---Facts admitted need not be proved---Scope---Piercing the veil of incorporation---The appellant company and its CEO allegedly admitted owing the respondent Rs.57,000,000/- in their pleadings---Leave to defend application was dismissed on admission of liability---The Trial Court passed the impugned order based on the admission, raising the question of whether this admission was sufficient to support the decision---The Trial Court merely on the admission passed the impugned order---Validity---Where there is an admission in a pleading (such as written statement) there is no requirement for further proof---Leave to defend application could be dismissed where liability was admitted by CEO of the company---The appellant company at later stage could not disclaim its CEO from acting on its behalf considering the appellant company had repeatedly accepted / endorsed the CEO as its representative---The appellant company was estopped by its own conduct from claiming a juristic separative between itself and its CEO at such a belated stage---A piercing of the veil of incorporation would no doubt show the CEO and the appellant company to be one and the same i.e. CEO being the only person with whom the respondent had interacted---The signing of the agreement, cheques and all correspondence by the appellant company with the respondent were conducted through its CEO---The appellant company failed to show any illegality with the impugned order which was rendered entirely on admissions made by both the appellant company and its CEO through pleadings made under oath---The new plea of separating the CEO and the appellant company was also only taken at the appellate stage and was never raised earlier during trial proceedings---The CEO by purporting to substitute himself into the appellate proceedings had shown proximity with the appellant company---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

OILBOY (PVT.) LTD. vs PAK QATAR INVESTMENT (PVT — 2025 CLD 852 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD