P L D 2000 PESHAWAR 78

PHOENIX SECURITY SERVICES (PVT.) LTD. through Director

V/S

MESSRS EMERALD MINING COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH MANAGING

Per Mian Shakirullah Jan, J.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Articles 1, 199 & 247

It is now quite clear that this Court, the Company Judge, is having the jurisdiction in the place where the jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar has been extended. According to Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, neither the Supreme Court nor the High Court shall exercise any jurisdiction under the Constitution in relation to Tribal Area unless Parliament by law otherwise provides.[p. 81]A

The jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court and of the Supreme Court has been extended by Act No.XXVII of 1973 of the Parliament which is reproduced :-

Extension of jurisdiction of Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan shall have, in relation to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas of Chitral, Dir, Kalat, Swat and Malakand Protected Area, the same jurisdiction as it has in relation to the other areas of the North-West Frontier Province.

Now it is quite evident that the jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar has been extended to PATA including Swat where the registered office of the respondent is situated and resultantly this Court which is a Bench of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar is having jurisdiction in the case of the respondent-Company as its registered office is situated at Swat.[p. 81, 82]B

The Companies Act, 1913 and the Companies Ordinance, 1984 are having analogous provisions with regard to the winding up as section 162 of the Companies Act corresponds to section 305 of the Computer Ordinance and similar provisions relating to the application for winding up under section 166 of the Companies Act relates to section 309 of the Companies Ordinance. Section 508 (proviso) t o subsection (1) have saved the incorporation of any company registered under any law which was repealed by the Ordinance and similarly any offence has been committed under the old law, the proceedings may be taken under this Ordinance and similarly under subsection (2) of section 6 of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 has been made applicable and similarly under section 510 of the Ordinance all the actions, investigation, proceedings, orders initiated under the repealed laws have been saved, in other words this Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the proceedings under the Companies Act, 1913 as held in 1986 CLC 2933(c), then proceedings can be initiated under the Companies Act, 1913 in this Court if otherwise it has got jurisdiction under Companies Ordinance, 1984 and thus the proceedings can be initiated and shall continue before this Court initiated or taken under the repealed laws i.e. Companies Act, 1913 that this Court having the jurisdiction to deal with the matters under the repealed laws.[p. 81, 82]C

Hence while holding that this Court has got the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the cases brought under the Companies Act, this application may be treated as application under the Companies Act, 1913 and now the case will proceed on merits. To come up for further proceedings on 24-4-2000. [p. 83]D