' In this petition under sections 297, 305 to 357 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 for the winding up of the respondent No,1, Messrs Dadex Eternit Limited, the following prayer has been made:- "Wherefore, it is prayed that in order to arrest plunder and fraud and to protect public interests this Company be ordered wound up and all necessary and related relief be generously granted including exemplary interim declaratory and injunctive relief plus indemnity and punitive costs. An honest-to-goodness Liquidator or Administrator (not related to Establishment progeny) should also be appointed. Other, different and additional relief be also granted as is regarded just and proper by the Hon'ble Court. Right to add parties and file Amended Applications is humbly reserved. Managing Director of Dadex Enternit Qasim Dada is an influential billionaire with several politicians in his humble deep-pockets, nonetheless he be ordered administered Lie Detection tests under Article 164, Law of Evidence (designer noose drafted by Jafree in 1980 and conceived earlier on encouragement from LJJ Akram/Baxter and Brohi) and it will prove that he has run the Company fully knowing or totally reckless to the truth of the matter that its products are dangerous (often fatal) to health, if so, then his prosecution (alongwith his collaborators) be ordered also for treason under Article 6 of the "
2. The respondent No,1 through an application has raised a preliminary objection. On the basis of the certificate of registration, dated 15th of August, 1999 it is claimed that the respondent No,1 is a Public Limited Company and has its registered office at Karachi. Therefore, according to the respondent this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition in hand. In support of the submissions learned counsel for the respondent relies upon re. Muzaffar Ali Awan v. Messrs Pioneer Alliance (Pvt.) Limited (PLD 1989 Lahore 106) and re. Muhammad Usman v. Messrs The Taj Company Limited (1992 CLC 1737).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied the claim of the respondent qua the location of its registered office. However, he states that since it is a matter of public interest and since the products of the Company are being sold in the Province of Punjab as well, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. As an alternate pleads that this prayer with regard to the injurious affects of the products made by the respondent be retained at Lahore while rest of the claim be bifurcated to be referred to the Hon'ble Sindh High Court.
4. However, I will not agree. The provisions of section 7(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 are absolutely clear that it is the High Court having jurisdiction in the place at which the registered office of the Company is situated which can entertain any matter under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The provisions of subsection (3) of section 1 as referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not answer the legal objection of the learned counsel for the respondent. The ratio settled in the aforesaid judgments also supports the objection taken by the respondent against the jurisdiction of this Court.
5. The alternate plea for bifurcation of the prayer is also not allowable. The prayer clause as reproduced above neither admits of any bifurcation as prayed for at the bar nor in fact legally this Court can bifurcate any matter and refer a part of it to another Court of equal jurisdiction i,e, Sindh High Court in this case.
6. Accordingly this Civil Original shall be returned to the petitioner for its filing before the Honble Sindh High Court, if so advised.