Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISE (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Chief Executive VS Respondent: CHARLES ANTEBY and 3 othersHonorable Justice Sarmad Jalal OsmanyNisar A. Mujahid
2004 C L C 1407
2004 C L C 1407
[Karachi]
Before Sarmad Jalal Osmany, J
INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISE (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Chief Executive---Plaintiff
versus
CHARLES ANTEBY and 3 others---Respondents
Suit No.478 of 2004, decided on 24th May, 2004.
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
---Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2---Suit for declaration permanent injunction---Grant of status 4uo---Amendment in plaint---Prima facie, some dispute regarding monetary matters between parties had arisen which had escalated into levelling of accusations against each other and exchange of threats-- Parties, in circumstances were ordered to maintain status quo till next date.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. VI, R.17---Plaint---Aritendment---Dispute between share-holders of company inter .se---Pakistani share-holders having claim against their foreign counterparts---Such share-holders were needed to be made plaintiffs in the case---Plaint was asked to be amended accordingly.
Nisar A. Mujahid for plaintiff.
ORDER
Learned counsel submits that the issues involved in this matter are the claims of the Pakistani share-holders in the plaintiff-Company viz. Saifullah A. Paracha, Farhat Paracha and Uzair Paracha as against defendants Nos.1 and 2 who are foreign share-holders. Per the learned counsel the Pakistani and the foreign share-holders each own 50% of the issued and paid-up share capital of the Company. It is further submitted that as per agreement between the share-holders, a copy of which has been placed on the record, certain arrangements were made among them as to commission/profit sharing regarding business generated by each party. Thereafter as Saifullah Paracha was arrested in Thailand by the American Authorities where he had gone to meet defendant No. 1, Charles Anteby, regarding business matters, disagreements have arisen between both the parties viz. Pakistani partners and American partners. Similarly Uzair Paracha is also in custody of the American authorities in U.S.A. Learned counsel says that this is due to the allegations against Saifullah Paracha and Uzair Paracha as to their involvement with international terrorist organizations, who are working against the interests of U.S.A. Due to incarceration of Saifullah Paracha and Uzair Paracha, the US. partners are now trying to take over the business of the Company in Pakistan. In support of this contention learned counsel has relied upon the agreement between defendant Nos.1 and 2 and S. Abul Mahsin, who is, in fact, an employee of the plaintiff-Company. Similarly, defendant No. l is now levelling allegations against Farhat Paracha (wife of Saifullah Paracha) that she has started a vilification campaign against the latter viz. That he was responsible for the arrest of Saifullah Paracha and that he had misappropriated certain funds of the Company. In this connection learned counsel has referred to the printout of the E-mail message dated 9-9-2003 sent by defendant No. l to Farhat Paracha and her reply wherein all these allegations are denied. Thereafter, certain negotiations took place between the parties as to a compromise. However, now these have broken down and the defendant No. l is threatening to close down the Company in Karachi through the US Government etc. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed for notice as well as interim relief per this application.
I have heard learned counsel. Prima facie; it appears that there is some dispute regarding monetary matters between the parties and perhaps this has escalated into the levelling of accusations against each other and exchange threats. Consequently, the parties shall maintain status quo till the next date. Adjourned to a date in office. To be put up -after vacations.
Upon a perusal of the plaint it appears that basically the dispute is between the share-holders inter se and in my opinion all the Pakistani hare-holders who have claims against their foreign counterparts shall be made plaintiffs also. The plaint to be amended accordingly. The company shall be made a pro forma defendant.
H.B.T./I-7/K Order accordingly.