Summary: A conjoint reading of Sections 391 and 306 of the Companies Act, 2017 ("Act") demonstrates that while Section 391 regulates transfers and alterations effected after the commencement of the winding up proceedings, Section 306 merely identifies the point in time from which such commencement is to be reckoned. By itself, Section 306 of the Act neither invalidates nor does render void any transfer, disposition, or alteration in the status of a member of the company. The legal consequence contemplated by Section 391 of the Act is not attracted merely upon the filing of a winding up petition; rather, the provision becomes operative upon the passing of a winding up order. A transfer of shares made after the presentation of a winding up petition but prior to the passing of a winding-up order does not ipso facto becomes void under Sections 306 and 391 of the Act, as the presentation of a winding up petition cannot be treated as equivalent to a winding up order so as to automatically invalidate bona fide transactions undertaken during the intervening period.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: A decree of jactitation does not fetter the criminal court from probing the victim's consent in a rape trial

Summary: Execution of Decree?Judicial Auction?Maintainability of Objections?Finality of Earlier Adjudication?An issue finally determined between the parties cannot be permitted to be reopened in subsequent execution proceedings merely on the basis of a later judicial exposition of law. Order XXI Rule 90, C.P.C.?PLD 2024 SC 873 (Mst. Samrana Nawaz)?Prospective Operation of Judicial Pronouncements?Subsequent declaration of law does not automatically unsettle judicial determinations that have already attained finality inter se the parties. Doctrine of Finality of Litigation?Binding Effect of Earlier Judicial Orders?Where an order regarding maintainability of objections has attained finality after exhaustion of remedies, the same cannot be circumvented through collateral proceedings. Execution Proceedings?Judicial Discipline?Execution cannot be converted into endless litigation by repeatedly raising controversies already concluded by competent Courts. Speaking Order?Validity?A judicial order is to be assessed by the substance and quality of its reasoning, not by its length or elaboration?Mere brevity does not render an order non-speaking. Judicial Sale?Order XXI Rules 84 & 85, C.P.C.?Material Irregularity?Substantial Injury?Every procedural deviation does not ipso facto vitiate a judicial sale?Interference is justified only where material irregularity is coupled with proof of substantial prejudice. Judicial Auction?Deposit of Auction Money?Banking Instruments?Deposit through demand drafts/pay orders accepted by Court Auctioneers under authority of the executing Court constitutes valid compliance in the absence of statutory violation or demonstrable prejudice. Substantial Injury?Essential Ingredient?A challenge to a concluded judicial sale cannot succeed unless the objector establishes both material irregularity and consequential substantial injury. Court Auction?Competing Bidder?Higher Offer?Absence of any rival bidder, superior offer or demonstrable financial loss strongly negatives the plea of prejudice or inadequacy of sale. Judicial Sale?Reserve Price?Undervaluation?Valuation Report?A subsequent valuation report represents only an expert opinion and cannot, by itself, invalidate a concluded auction or establish inadequacy of price. Judicial Sale?Mere Inadequacy of Price?Not a Ground for Setting Aside Sale?Unless directly attributable to fraud, material irregularity or illegality resulting in substantial injury. Valuation Evidence?Contemporaneous Challenge?Failure to challenge valuation before the executing Court precludes reopening the issue on the basis of subsequently procured valuation reports. Fraud and Collusion?Standard of Proof?Fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved through clear, cogent and legally admissible evidence?Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof. Unproved Documents?No Evidentiary Value?Findings of fraud or collusion cannot be founded upon disputed or unproved material. Jurisdiction of Executing Court?Transfer Application?Section 12(2), C.P.C.?Pendency of collateral proceedings, in the absence of an express stay order, does not divest the executing Court of jurisdiction to proceed with execution. Execution Proceedings?Statutory Jurisdiction?Banking Court?Section 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?Executing Court remains competent to supervise execution and determine objections unless specifically restrained. Bona Fide Auction Purchaser?Protection of Vested Rights?Rights acquired through a court-supervised auction deserve protection and cannot be unsettled except upon proof of fraud, fundamental illegality or substantial injury. Judicial Auctions?Public Confidence?Sanctity and Finality?Frequent interference with concluded judicial sales on speculative or technical objections would erode public confidence and discourage genuine participation in court auctions. Appellate Jurisdiction?Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?Interference is unwarranted in the absence of illegality, jurisdictional defect, material irregularity, or misreading or non-reading of evidence. Execution First Appeals?Dismissal?Auction Sale Upheld?Where objections stand barred by finality and otherwise fail on merits for want of proof of fraud, illegality, material irregularity or substantial injury, confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate call for no interference.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending