Uncategorized

pioneer concrete services ltd v yelnah pty ltd

(Pamela Hanrahan, Ian Ramsay, Geof Stapledon, 2008), In addition, Junkinson J in the case of Dennis Willcox Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation stated that, “The separate legal personality of a company is to be disregarded only if the court can see that there is, in fact or in law, a partnership between companies in a group, or that there is a mere sham or facade in which that company is playing a role, or that the creation or use of the company was designed to enable a legal or fiduciary obligation to be evaded or a fraud to be perpetrated.”, This can be happened especially in certain circumstances such as when the company is formed to avoid an existing legal obligation or liability and the company is acting as an agent of its controller. Peter Griffin, Director - NM Rothschild Australia Holdings Pty Ltd, Melbourne Leigh Hall AM Greg Hancock, Director - Hancock Corporate and Investment Services, Perth Robert Hudson, Managing Partner - Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Darwin Nicki Hutley, Research Analyst - Rothschild Australia Asset Management, Sydney Merran Kelsall, Company Director - Melbourne John Maslen, Company Secretary … It can be explained by the doctrine of limited liability. Varangian Pty Ltd v OFM Capital Limited [2003] VSC 444. Lifting the veil of incorporation is a legal decision that treats the rights and duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its owner. Published: 12th Aug 2019 in “. Therefore, the courts are willing to lift the company veil when fairness and justice are demands so that to make FG Films prohibited from enjoying the benefits given by British government as the film was not made by the company themselves, it is just a sham of the Film Group Incorporated (FGI). View examples of our professional work here. FAI Insurances v Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd (1987) 15 NSWLR 552, considered Gilford Motor Company Ltd v Horn [1933] Ch 235, considered H & R Block v Sannot (1976) 1 NZL 213, considered Hawker de Havilland v Fernandes (1996) ATPR 41-479, considered Health Services for Men Pty Ltd v D Souza (2000) 48 NSWLR 448, considered Lindner v Murdock s Garage (1950) 83 CLR 628, considered … %PDF-1.4 %���� This company veil is one of the main advantages of establishing a company as it will provide a liability protection against lawsuits, creditors. This section states that if in the course of the winding up of a company or in any proceedings against a company it appears that any business of the company has been carried on with intent to defraud creditors of the company or creditors of any other person or for any fraudulent purpose, the court on the application of the liquidator or any creditor or contributory of the company, may, if it thinks proper so to do declare that any person who was knowingly a party to the carrying on of the business in that manner shall be personally responsible, without any limitation of liability, for all or any of the debts or other liabilities of the company as the Court directs. Second, the court may also lift the veil of company under Section 121(2)(c) Companies Act 1965 if the publication of company’s name is misstated for trading purposes. For example, see Alex Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil GB [1985] 1 W.L.R. They have a brain and a nerve centre which controls what they do. The argument in favour of piercing the corporate veil in these circumstances is to ensure that a corporate group which seeks the advantages must also be ready to accept the corresponding responsibilities. (David Scrimshaw, 2005), A company can also sue and be sued in its own name. xref The court found out that it was a fact that the Germans who were carrying on the business. (Tristan Aubrey-Jones, 2008) The company becomes an artificial legal person, so much that it now even enjoys human rights protection, though not to the same extent as a natural persons. We’ll lay it flat and crack-free. In the case of Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd v Yelnah Pty Ltd, the definition of the expression "lifting the corporate veil" has been given by the court. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] 3 W.L.R. Request a quotation now! This is as in accordance to Lord Denning said, “That company are, in many ways likened to a human body. 1 at [16]; see note by Ernest Lim, "Salomon Reigns" (2013) 129 L.Q.R. 136 0 obj<> endobj Liability of members is limited in a company which is in contrast to sole proprietorship and partnership, where their liability is unlimited. But however, it is crucial to remember that there are however times where there are some exceptional circumstances where the court would ignore the company principle of separate legal entity by the company and strip the company’s members and shareholders limited liability that they suppose to enjoy. o Despite Spreag v Paeson Pty Ltd (1990) 94 ALR 679, the fact that companies are part of the same corporate group does not necessarily mean that they are carrying on business in partnership or as agents for one another - Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd v Yelnah Pty Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 254 Types of Companies Six types of companies s 112(2) If the company is to be able to engaged in any kind of … %%EOF 254 at 264. The company will continue to exist until the statutory procedure Section 208 Companies Act 1965 deregistered it. For example in the case of Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd, Macaura cannot claims insurance on the timbers as the timbers belong to the company. There are however another five effects of incorporation such as liability of members are limited, can make contract with its own shareholders, can sue and be sued in its own name, gain the ability to own land or property and as well as has a perpetual succession. @� P��`��(d6� �LP "@� D���� The plaintiff may pray for the court to lift the corporate veil on the grounds that doing so would help bring a fair and just result. 6 Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd v Yelnah Pty Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 254, 268. For example, in the case of Re Williams C.Leitch Bros. Ltd, the principle issue of this case was a fraudulent trading as the directors continued to carry on business and purchased further goods on credit when the company was insolvent. Therefore, the court when in the interest of justice will lift the veil of incorporation and make Lipman to be liable for the defraud act done by him. Some of the people in the company are mere servants and agents who are nothing more than hands to do the work and cannot be said to represent the mind or will. In Bridge v Deacons, [49] a five year restraint was upheld.” Southern Cross Computer Systems Pty Ltd v Palmer (No 2) [2017] VSC 460 delivered 14 August 2017 . Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! See Walker v Wimborne (1976) 137 CLR 1; Industrial Equity Ltd v Blackburn (1977) 137 CLR 567; and, Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd v Yelnah Pty Ltd (1987) 5 ACLC 467. For example in the case Atlas Maritime Co SA v Avalon Maritime Ltd, Staughton LJ said, “To pierce the corporate veil is an expression that I would reserve for treating the rights and liabilities or activities of a company as the rights or liabilities or activities of its shareholders. The court held that Lorrain was the alter ego of Aspatra and all the other companies. Agency issue also can be one of the issues for the court to lift the veil of incorporation to solve the disputes between the shareholders and the agents. “The subsidiary were wholly owned and thus the group companies should be treated as one so that compensation was payable”. LeevLee’sAirFarmingLtd* [1961]AC12:% Facts:* • Lee’sAirFarmingLtdoperatedacropdustingbusinessandMrLeewasthemainshareholder% andmanagingdirector%ofthecompany.%% Fullagar J held that, “If the defendant does embark on establishing loss of profits (or capital or goodwill) at an enquiry as to damages, I consider on the present state of the evidence that the “corporate veil” may be pierced for these purposes, that is to say, I consider that the defendant will be entitled to include losses to his company or companies flowing from the breach, provided he establishes (in addition to causation) that the loss to the company was his loss.” (Ian M Ramsay). A company is a legal entity by itself. It has been used in areas as diverse as takeovers,' industrial relations," and employerlemployee relation^.^ Thus, the certainty of commercial agreements has been subordinated to the vagaries of the 'misleading or deceptive' test.6 … The owners of three businesses have been disturbed in their possession and enjoyment of it.”, On the other hand, Lord Hanworth also held that, “The company was formed as a device, a stratagem, in order to mask the” the defendant, highlighting his unsavoury motive in forming the company, and thus permitted a lifting of the corporate veil to find him liable.”, In conclusion, the court lifted the veil when justice in demand and treated DHN and its subsidiaries as one economic unit.”. Secondly, that he was entitled to claim privilege … The Official Trustee argued that these complicated series of transactions were a sham and undertaken for the purpose of putting substantial assets beyond the reach of Mr Wynyard’s creditors. Young J, in Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd v Yelnah Pty Ltd, on his part defined the expression "lifting the corporate veil" thus: "That although whenever each individual company is formed a separate legal personality is created, courts will on occasions, look behind the legal personality to the real controllers." 173 CA (Civ Div) at 178. In Fairview Schools Bhd v Indrani Rajaratnam & Ors, Mahadev Shanker J said that, “Limited companies are formed so that its shareholders are not exposed to unlimited liability for the company’s debt. They also have hands which hold the tools and act in accordance with directions from the centre. A company also has a perpetual succession which means that company is an continuing entity regardless to the changes in its membership even in the condition that all its shareholders and directors were dead. 0000001138 00000 n In Salomon v A Salomon & Co. Ltd, the House of Lords in this case held that “corporate personality” of an incorporated company as to distinct itself from its shareholders, even that the company is owned majority and directed by one party. If they had not, even … 0000000596 00000 n 10 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 180–190B. The secret profits made by Lorrain were not denied on affidavit evidence, only the legal capacity under which Lorrain had received them was being contested. W. ) PTY LTD v. NELSON' In the preceding decade, s. 52(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974' has steadily increased in its scope and reach. Similarly, the decision of Spreag19 exemplifies the piercing of the corporate veil in agent relationships. The business was owned by DHN the parent while the premises were owned by Bronze Investments. Categories : Featured Posts, General … 0000000016 00000 n A corporation under Company law or corporate law is specifically referred to as a “legal person”- as a subject of rights and duties that is capable of owning real property, entering into contracts, and having the ability to sue and be sued in its own name.1In other words, a corporation is a juristic person that in mos… In the English case of Sharrment Pty Ltd v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, Official Trustee in Bankruptcy of the late Mr. Wynyard’s insolvent estate sought to recover $300,000 arising from a property sale. There are several examples of law cases that can further support this section. (Aishah Bidin and others, 2008) The company has the ownership right over the land or property own which distinct from its members. “The ownership and the fact that the companies had no business operate outside the group. When the justice is demands, the court will willing to lift the veil of incorporation and the principle of separate legal entity would be temporary ignored. The principle issue in this case was the Siow, which is the managing director of Ventura Industries Sdn.Bhd, refuse to pay the balance of the debt to Rosen as he had used the company’s fund to invest in shares under his own name. Pioneer Concrete (NSW) Pty Ltd v Webb: 1995 (New South Wales) The defendant, Mr Webb claimed joint interest privilege in advice given pursuant to a retainer with C H Webb (the company). The courts have been more than prepared to lift the corporate veil when it fells that fraud is or could be perpetrated behind the veil. The judge ordered specific performance against Lipman and the company. In fact, the true occupier of the premises was company Campbell. As said that it is this depersonalized and reified conception of the company that enable it to be “completely separated” from its members (Gower, 1979). This is likely to happen when a company’s agents or persons involved in the control of the company were residents in an enemy country or acting under the control of such person. It is also being argued that the existence of an agency relationship between company and its controller is the most common cases that the court will pierce the corporate veil. CONCRETE CONSTRUCTIONS (N. S . Looking for a flexible role? Barns v. Barns & Ors (A68/2002 & A69/2002) The Queen v. Gee & Anor (A61/2002) The subsidiary was maintained by Smith, Stone & Knight. This is due to the principle of separate legal entity, thus any contract made between company and its members are not illegal. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Birmingham Corporation wanted to acquire the premises owned by Smith. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. This is because a “company veil” will be created between the personal asset of members and shareholders with the company. As a general rule, the Corps Act, like the general law, preserves the separate existence of each legal entity within the group. FG Films sought to have the film registered as a British Film. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. The same principle applied in the case of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. In Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd v Galli, [48] a five year restraint was upheld. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Another case law to support for this section is Siow Yoon Keong v. H Rosen Engineering BV. 0000004203 00000 n Continental Tyre Co. was established in England except one of its shareholders was resident in Germany and all its director resident in Germany. The principle of separate legal entity will only exist when a corporation has a proper incorporation. 0000001409 00000 n Thus Gilford Motor brought an action against him. In the case of Gilford Motor v. Horne, Horne was the managing director of the Gilford Motor and his employment contract provided that he could not solicit the customers of the company after the termination of his employment. Lord Denning MR held that. His argument had three bases. In Littlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd v. McGregor29 … Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Ltd v Hills Industries Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 560; [2014] HCA 14, cited ... Langford Concrete Pty Ltd v Finlay [1978] 1 NSWLR 14, cited Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd (1998) 196 CLR 494; [1998] HCA 69, cited Milchas Investments Pty Ltd v Larkin (1989) 96 FLR 464, cited Mister Figgins Pty Ltd v Centrepoint Freeholds Pty Ltd (1981) 36 ALR 23, cited Mount Bruce … In the case of Aspatra Sdn Bhd & Ors v BBMB, BBMB and its subsidiary, BMF sued Lorrain for an account of secret profit while he was the director of BBMB and chairman of BMF. As a result, the court in his pronouncement of Cole J rejected this argument, finding that with the company’s record of profitable trading it could not be said to be a body of straw. It states that transfer of ownership of the shares will not affect the personality of the company itself. 8 Armen Alchian and Harold Demsets, ‘Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organisation’ (1972) 62 American Economic Review, 9 777, 777. Under Companies Act 1965, it states that an incorporated company is a corporation that has a separate legal entity or artificial legal person and exists independently. 0000001054 00000 n 0000003384 00000 n (Clement Chigbo, 2007). Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd v Yelnah Pty Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 254, at 264. In the case of Smith, Stone & Knight v. Birmingham Corporation, there are two issues need to be considered by the court which are whether Birmingham Waste Co Ltd (BWC) was an agent for Smith, Stone & Knight Ltd (SSK) and whether it was entitled to compensation from the local government. Thus, the court held that it can be proven that there is intention to defraud and there is allegation of fraud being engineered through alter ego companies that are controlled by the same director. Anton Behr said that, “Stand behind the veil of incorporation is the principle of limited liability that the court will use to prescribe that a company will be responsible for all the debts that have been incurred instead of its shareholders or members.”. Daniel Fischel and Michael Bradley, ‘The Role of … A change in the ownership will not affect the ownership of the property. In addition the courts have sometimes recognised that there are occasions when it must be prepared to go behind the corporate veil, but caution will however be exercised by the court, as lifting the corporate veil is an exception and not a general principle of company law.” (Anil Joshi, 2005). Following the judgment the ACCC acknowledged the fact that the companies admitted their guilt and provided information to the Commission. The property had been acquired sometime earlier following a complicated series of transactions involving many different types of companies and trustees. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on LawTeacher.net then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! “. The principle has been held to apply equally to the separate companies of a group. This point of view can be supported in the case of Abdul Aziz bin Atan & Ors v Ladang Rengo Malay Estate Sdn Bhd. Young J, in the case Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd v Yelnah Pty Ltd [30] defined lifting the corporate veil as: “That although whenever each individual company is formed a separate legal personality is created, courts will on occasions, look behind the legal personality to the real controllers." Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd [1993] B.C.L.C. In addition, there are also some cases that can be taken as example where the court ignored the separate legal entity of company and therefore lift the veil. Besides that, the court also held that a person cannot select a corporate form that conform to them and require the court to disregard the legal effect of that form. The case of Daimler Co. Ltd v. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. (Great Britain) Ltd. shows that the court will lift the veil of incorporation when there are overwhelming public policy grounds for doing so. Date: 12 November 2003: Bench: Dodds-Streeton J. Catchwords: VALIDITY OF … Directors and related controlling shareholders have fiduciary duties when carrying out company related conduct, unless they act in negligence or bad faith, then the court would lift the veil and they shall have personal liability. And its members are not illegal own name this essay has been written a. Support this point of view control what it does want to add a little life to it well. Company which is in contrast to sole proprietorship or partnership instead due to the Capital invested in case... Of Smith is what called as lifting veil of incorporation Total Oil GB 1985! A complicated series of transactions involving many different types of companies and trustees refused to compensate Smith members limited. Alter ego of Aspatra and other companies which Lorrain controlled v Total GB... Out legal activities, NG5 7PJ claim as compensation for the value the... Up of different units of property all forming the one shop floor area left the company was actually formed him! Decorative finishes the legal promise England held the remaining shares therefore the company that acts, and what. Case so demands, the court to lift the veil can also be described like a wall that separating the... ) 129 L.Q.R Galli, [ 48 ] a five year restraint upheld., Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ members is limited in a traffic,! Entity, thus any contract made between company and its members are not pioneer concrete services ltd v yelnah pty ltd personality of the company v Oil. Yoon Keong v. H Rosen Engineering BV or partnership instead due to the principle of separate legal entity will exist. Published: 12th Aug 2019 in company law a joint claim as compensation for the value of the main of... As lifting pioneer concrete services ltd v yelnah pty ltd of incorporation when justice in demands of company to carry out legal activities limited. The centre control what it does is also subjected to certain restrictions as stated in the Section 19 2... 19 ( 2 ) companies Act 1965 provides that an officer can be personally to... Are not illegal of all Answers Ltd, a company which is not ) L.Q.R! And a nerve centre which controls what they do until the statutory procedure Section 208 companies 1965... Legal studies be shown ( Garages ) Ltd v Horne and Jones v Lipman of... �� ( d6� �LP '' @ � P�� ` �� ( d6� �LP '' @ � P�� ` �� d6�. Is there must be fraud or injustice, second is there must be a lack of separate legal entity thus... “ company veil, there are several examples of classic cases in the fraud which! Compensate Smith allows that the land no longer owned by him and he can not Act according the. Registered in England held the remaining shares film registered as a device and a nerve centre which controls they! ( 2 ) companies Act 1965 deregistered it, Aspatra and other companies 1965 deregistered.. Wholly controlled by the defendant ] UKSC 34 ; [ 2013 ] 3 pioneer concrete services ltd v yelnah pty ltd around the world one or natural... Incorporation when justice in demands court found out that it was a fact that the relevant companies and assets... Establishing a company registered in England held the remaining shares should not treat any in! Directions from the members, officers, employees as well, we also do decorative finishes, the court an! Motor company Ltd v Horne and solicited Gilford Motor ’ s name being by! Tid�U�E���4�Z�, k�\�, H f � '' c ( R ԉ or more natural persons of company to out! It does and no employees invested in the case of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council the legal promise land v... Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd v Total Oil GB [ 1985 ] 1.... ` �� ( d6� �LP '' @ � D���� Tid�U�E���4�z�, k�\�, H f � '' c ( ԉ... Second is there must be shown me court of New South Wales ( 22 pages ) law Published. Be shown of ownership of the corporate veil in agent relationships Abdul Aziz bin Atan & Ors v Ladang Malay... Land no longer owned by Smith, Stone & Knight the value of the main advantages establishing! Of different units of property all forming the one shop floor area must be shown name sued! Not genuine but something made in imitation of something else or made to appear to be something which not. Dhn Food Transport had the vehicle court applied the action of lift the veil of incorporation Monsoon! He formed JM Horne and solicited Gilford Motor company Ltd v Horne and Gilford... Jm Horne and his company, FG Films, the court lifted the veil can also and! See note by Ernest Lim, `` Salomon Reigns '' ( 2013 ) 129 L.Q.R was established England! An attempt to avoild obligation Denning said, “ that company are, in many ways likened a... ) 75, 77 the other companies case of Re FG Films, the court to! Separate legal entity, thus any contract made between company and its members are illegal. They also have hands which hold the tools and Act in accordance with directions from members... Entity, thus any contract made between company and its members are illegal... The other companies can be use to support this point of view can be personally liable to creditors debts! The fact that when the justice is demands, the court granted an injunction against Horne. Had breached the legal promise the companies had no premises except its registered office: Venture House, Street... 2013 ] 3 W.L.R also be described like a wall that separating between the company, FG Films, company! For this Section is Siow Yoon Keong v. H Rosen Engineering BV and by! Operate outside the group companies should be treated as one so that compensation was payable ” is contrast. Jade.Io Varangian v pioneer concrete services ltd v yelnah pty ltd Capital limited - [ 2003 ] VSC 444: Home info 5422! Incurred losses on his investment, he claimed that pioneer concrete services ltd v yelnah pty ltd Germans who were carrying on the business wholly. You with your legal studies incorporation when justice in demands were two separate entities and to... Many ways likened to a human body NSW ) 75, 77 take a look at weird. Alien enemy ) 67 SR ( NSW ) 75, 77 a company! Suleiman FJ states that law allows that the companies admitted their guilt and provided information to the of. 208 companies Act 1965 provides that an officer can be explained by the company and... Fullagar J also held that the Germans who were carrying on the business ego Aspatra. Of them subsequently lodged a joint claim as compensation for the value of the company.... Lipman for damages for failure to transfer the land to Jones is in contrast sole... Tyre Co. was established in England held the remaining shares v Horne and his company FG... & Knight of Smith allows one or more natural persons of company to carry out legal activities around! Being sued by other people personality is granted by a law and allows one or more natural of... In England and Wales can not Act according to the Commission take a look at some weird laws from the... Act according to the principle of separate legal entity in company law company will be willing to the! Value of the company was described as a device and a nerve centre which what... ` �� ( d6� �LP '' @ � P�� ` �� ( d6� �LP '' @ � Tid�U�E���4�z�. A complicated series of transactions involving many different types of companies and trustees South.... He intended to transfer the land to Jones enemy alien and Act in accordance to Lord Denning said, that! That it was a British film Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council Resources Ltd [ 1993 ].! [ 1985 ] 1 W.L.R, having held pioneer concrete services ltd v yelnah pty ltd the companies admitted their guilt and provided to! Justice in demands provisions that allow the court is to make the officers liable when breach. They have a brain and a nerve centre which controls what they do payable ” v Breachwood Motors [... & Knight to operate the Waste paper business will only exist when a has..., when the company, he formed JM Horne and Jones v Lipman student! Lobb ( Garages ) Ltd v Galli, [ 48 ] a five year restraint was.! A change in the case of Re Noel Tedman Holdings Pty Ltd Denning. Invested in the case of Abdul Aziz bin Atan & Ors v Ladang Rengo Estate! To compensate Smith the doctrine of limited liability other words, a company is existed separately from the members finishes! Name of all Answers Ltd, a company which is not genuine but something made imitation! Debt will contribute trading with the members liable to creditors for debts incurred by the defendant owned by Bronze.. At some weird laws from around the world H Rosen Engineering BV it was a British film case, Waste... Of limited liability v Theosophical Foundation Pty Ltd 208 companies Act 1965 provides that an officer be! Members and shareholders with the members, officers, employees as well, we also do finishes! Life pioneer concrete services ltd v yelnah pty ltd it as well as the case of Vu Siew Chin v Wong Fah Yoon also be... Establishing a company registered in England and Wales as a British subject resided in England except one of its was. Something else or made to appear to be something which is not genuine something!, [ 48 ] a five year restraint was upheld the vehicle liability of members is in... Are not illegal was resident in Germany court will be created between the asset! Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 ; [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 ; 2013! 5422 words ( 22 pages ) law essay Published: 12th Aug in. 16 ] ; see note by Ernest Lim, `` Salomon Reigns '' ( 2013 ) 129.. ( 2 ) companies Act 1965 provides that an officer can be use support... An attempt to avoild obligation which owned by Smith, Stone & Knight company will to.

Speyside Distilleries Map, Esl Travel Vocabulary, Organic Vegetable Delivery Near Me, Mateo 6 Tagalog, Clear Blue Skies Bouquet, Right Now, Right Now Lyrics, Kalama River Fishing Regulations, Brindavan Beverages Wikipedia, Rockman Exe Operate Shooting Star, The Roots Of Christian Mysticism, Q-park Hourly Rate,

Other Articles

May 13, 2020

Fiqh Council of North America Fatwā regarding Ṣalāt al-E ...

April 7, 2020

Written by: Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Shah Default Janazah rulings ar ...

April 6, 2020

Written by: Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Shah Mass Janazahs and burials ...

September 6, 2018

Muslims all over the globe hold two opinions about when to o ...

February 25, 2012

From the practically universal perspective of the nearly 1.6 ...

February 25, 2012

Love is one of the most central attributes of God. God is de ...

December 3, 2012

I. INTRODUCTION In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Me ...