KARACHI, Sept 15: Businessman Saifullah Paracha’s wife has sued his American partner Charles Anteby and his wife in the Sindh High Court for repatriation of $470,000 as profit earned by their jointly-owned International Merchandize (Pvt) Limited in the United States.
Plaintiff Farhat Paracha alleged that the couple, in collusion with Shahzad Paracha, Umer Haider and Swaleh Khan and others, had also launched several identical concerns to usurp the business of the joint company. She seeks a number of injunctions against the couple, besides claiming Rs10 million in damages for harming her family business.
Filed through Advocate Nisar A. Mujahid, the plaintiff alleges that in order to advance his business interests, Charles Anteby first involved her son, Uzair Paracha, in a case in New York and then invited her husband to Bangkok to facilitate his arrest by the American FBI.
FRAUD CASE: The Sindh High Court on Monday confirmed bail of two accused booked under the newly-promulgated law against bouncing of cheques.
Applicants Noman Ahmad and Nasir Mirza, organizer of a music programme held in Karachi in April, had given cheques for Rs2 million to the woman who financed the show. A dispute over the proceeds arose and the financier presented the cheques to a bank for encashment.
The cheques were dishonoured and she lodged a complaint with the Gizri police station under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code. The provision had been incorporated in the PPC by the Bouncing of Cheques (Criminal Law Amendment) Ordinance, 2002. It declared the offence cognizable and non-bailable.
The accused approached the sessions court for bail, which was denied. They moved the high court through Advocate Raza Hashmi and were admitted to interim bail by Justice Zahid Kurban Alavi in the sum of Rs2 million each. The interim order came up for confirmation before Chief Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad on Monday and the CJ confirmed the order. The total amount involved in the dispute is Rs3.2 million.
Advocate Raza Hashmi earlier argued that the new law was not applicable to civil disputes. The dishonoured cheques were given as a security by the organizars to the financiers and not for encashment. They could be encashed only after full and final settlement of the disputed accounts. The offence also does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which regulates the grant of bail, the lawyer submitted.
