' SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.---The nomination papers filed by the appellant for PP-96 Gujrat-VI were rejected by the Returning Officer vide order dated 1-9-1993 on the ground that the appellant was a defaulter as he had failed to pay the loan obtained from Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited. In that regard he had placed reliance on the list of defaulters supplied by the Returning Officer of NA.
82 to whom the said list had been supplied by the Banking Council/Bankers Equity Limited.
2. Not feeling satisfied, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
3. This case was taken up in the early hours of the day. The learned counsel for the appellant after having argued the appeal at some length, sought permission to file a certificate by the Registrar of Companies, Company Registration Office or by any other authorized officer from the office of the Registrar of Companies in support of the contention that neither wife, nor sons and daughters of the appellant or any other dependant were holding any share in the company which had obtained loan from the Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. The request was allowed. After some time, he produced a letter signed by Mr. Zahoor Ahmad, Deputy Registrar, which has been marked as 'A' at his request.
Dasti summons were given to the learned counsel for the appellant for service on Zahoor Ahmad for appearance in the Court to make statement to prove the letter issued by him.
4. Zahoor Ahmad appeared in response to the summons. His statement has been recorded. He stated on oath that he had issued certificate marked 'A' correctly after checking the record. He explained that the names of the wife, daughters and sons of the appellant mentioned in the letter were given to him by the appellant. He was allowed to be cross-examined by both the learned counsel. Although, he admitted that Form A did not contain the names of the fathers and husbands of the share-holders but added that the names of the fathers and husbands of the share-holders were available in Form A furnished for the year 1987. He further explained that the names of the wife, sons and daughters mentioned in his letter do not appear in Form A of 1987. He also stated that none of the share-holders whose names are recorded in Form A of 1987, were wife, sons or daughters of the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although the loan in the sum of Rs,11.58 million has been shown against M/s. National Wood Industries (Private) Ltd., G.T. Road, Lala Musa and the appellant is one of the four Directors of the Company but since he holds only 1,000 shares of the Company out of 8,000 he cannot be disqualified from contesting election for being defaulter, as the value of his shares does not exceed fifty-one per cent. The learned counsel added that it is obvious from the statement made by Zahoor Ahmad, Deputy Registrar of Companies, that neither the wife of the appellant nor daughters and sons were holding shares in the Company.
6. Learned counsel appearing for Objector, although canvassed that the nomination papers of the appellant were rightly rejected for being defaulter of the loan beyond one million rupees but failed to make out a case that he was holding shares alongwith his spouses, sons, daughters and dependants of the value covering more than 51% of the value. Learned counsel pointed out the name of the person and stated that according to his instructions the said person was a brother of the appellant and being a minor he was dependant of the appellant. However, he failed to give any proof that the said person was really brother of the appellant and was dependant on him.
Nonetheless, even if the contention was accepted to be true, the case of the appellant will not fall within the mischief of disqualification resulting from default as the number of shares of that person were 1,000 and total number of shares of the appellant and of that person comes to only 2,000, which also is less than 51% of the total shares.
' Learned coursel lastly argued that if a Director or any shareholder of the Company obtains loan at his own even though in the name of the Company and fails to deposit the same during the stipulated period he would be held liable to be a defaulter even though he does not possess 51 shares. The argument does not advance the case of the objector as there was no assertion that the appellant had obtained any loan at his owr which according to the information of the Allied Bank, the Company had failed to pay.
7. Having considered all aspects of the case from all angles we are of the view that the impugned order is not maintainable. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
The nomination papers of the appellant shall be deemed to have been accepted.