Malik MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ NAZAM AWAN vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE Ss

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

Malik MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ NAZAM AWAN VS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE Ss.3(2)(b), 14(3)(g), 21, 21(2) & 21(4)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Companies Act (XIX of 2017), S.190---Trade Organizations Rules, 2013---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, invoking of---Availability of alternate remedy by the relevant law---No confidence motion against President of a trade organization---Applicability of the Companies Act, 2017 to trade organizations in governing their affairs---Scope---Trade organizations must follow provisions of the Companies Act, 2017---A "Registered Trade Organization" is by definition, an entity incorporated under the Companies Act, 2017---To obtain a license, a trade organization must be registered as a company with limited liability under the Companies Act, 2017---Additionally, license holders are required to apply for incorporation within 30 days and secure incorporation within 90 days---It is established that the Companies Act, 2017 would be applicable to trade organizations in governing their affairs---In the present case Bahawalpur Chamber of Commerce and Industries (BCCI) licensed under S. 3(2)(b) of the Trade Organizations Act, 2013 and registered under S. 42 of the Companies Act, 2017 must comply with the Companies Act, 2017, which governs corporate formation, operation, and management, ensuring standards of conduct, accountability, and transparency---Specifically, S. 190 of the Companies Act, 2017, outlines the process for removing a chief executive by requiring a majority vote from the board of directors---Additionally, Clause 14(1) of BCCI's license requires compliance with the Companies Act, 2017---Therefore, any breach of the Companies Act would constitute a breach of the Trade Organizations Rules, 2013 and the terms of the license---Section 14(3)(g) of the Trade Organizations Act, 2013 empowers the Regulator to direct trade organizations to comply with the Companies Act, 2017---In the instant case, the Regulator directed BCCI to convene an executive committee meeting to discuss a "no confidence motion" and his directions were at par with S. 190 of the Companies Act, 2017--Thus, respondent No.2 (the regulator) was well within its authority to issue the impugned direction---The instant petition was not maintainable due to availability of an alternate efficacious remedy under S. 21(2) of the Trade Organizations Act, 2013 and the directions issued by respondent No.2 were lawful and in conformity with the Trade Organizations Act, 2013---Consequently, the Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 913 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Malik MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ NAZAM AWAN VS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE S.190---Removal of chief executive of a company---Process---The board of directors by a majority vote can remove a chief executive of a company and the whole process for conducting such an exercise has been provided under S.190 of the Companies Act, 2017. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 913 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Malik MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ NAZAM AWAN VS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE Ss.3(2)(b), 14(3)(g), 21, 21(2) & 21(4)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Companies Act (XIX of 2017), S.190---Trade Organizations Rules, 2013---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, invoking of---Maintainability of a Constitutional petition while alternate remedy is provided by relevant law---'No confidence motion' against President of a trade organization---Applicability of the Companies Act, 2017 to trade organizations in governing their affairs---Facts in brevity were that the petitioner filed a Constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution challenging letters for convening an executive meeting concerning a "No Confidence Motion" against the President of Bahawalpur Chamber of Commerce and Industry (the "BCCI")---It was alleged that such actions had no legal basis in the governing documents of the trade organization---High Court considered as to "whether the Constitutional petition was maintainable under Art. 199 of the Constitution to challenge directions issued for convening a no confidence motion in a trade organization, despite the availability of an alternative remedy under S. 21 of the Trade Organizations Act, 2013 and in light of the applicability of the Companies Act, 2017 to such organizations"---Held: A bare reading of S. 21 of the Trade Organizations Act, 2013 established that the same provided a specific channel for addressing grievances and the aggrieved person must have exhausted this avenue before seeking further recourse---The petitioner's case fell within the purview of S. 21(2) Trade Organizations Act 2013 as the regulator/respondent No.2 had directed the secretary general of the trade organization/respondent No.3 to convene a meeting of the executive members to table the "No Confidence Motion" against the president of BCCI---The petitioner failed to provide a valid reason for not utilizing the available alternate remedy, which was a statutory, time-bound, and legislatively prescribed solution---Moreover, the Companies Act, 2017 was applicable to trade organizations in governing their affairs and BCCI licensed under S. 3(2)(b) of the of the Trade Organizations Act, 2013 and registered under S. 42 of the Companies Act, 2017 was required to comply with the provisions of the Companies Act, 2017---Therefore, any breach of the Companies Act, 2017 would violate the Trade Organization Rules, 2013 and the terms of the license---The regulator directed the BCCI to convene an executive committee meeting to discuss a "No Confidence Motion" and his directions were at par with S. 190 of the Companies Act 2017, thus, respondent No.2 (the "regulator") was well within its authority to issue the impugned direction---The instant petition was not maintainable due to availability of an alternate efficacious remedy under S. 21(2) of the Trade Organizations Act, 2013 and the directions issued by Respondent No.2 were lawful and in conformity with the Trade Organizations Act, 2013---Consequently, the Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 913 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Malik MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ NAZAM AWAN VS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE O.XXIX, R.1---Suits by or against corporations---Board resolution, requirement of---Scope---A company has a separate legal identity and to sue or initiate legal action on its behalf, authorization through board resolution is required, however, if a company official is sued personally, no board resolution is needed, as individuals and the company are legally distinct entities. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 913 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Malik MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ NAZAM AWAN VS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, invoking of---availability of alternate remedy---Scope---Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a routine matter of right---Instead, it has specific limitations that must be considered by the High Court when exercising its discretionary powers---article 199 of the Constitution outlines these limitations, including the requirement that alternate remedies must have been exhausted.

Malik MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ NAZAM AWAN vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE Ss — 2025 CLD 913 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD