LAHORE: In a significant judgment, an arbitral tribunal, retired Justice Maqbool Baqer, has ruled against the current management of Kausar Rana Resources (Pvt) Limited (KRR), the parent company of the Lahore Qalandars, a franchise of the Pakistan Super League (PSL).
The court held that the transfer of majority shares of Qatar Lubricants Company (Qalco) to brothers Atif Naeem Rana and Sameen Naeem Rana was legally void and lacked valid authorization.
The court ordered the respondents to either pay Qalco Rs 2.96 billion plus surcharge or immediately restore Qalco’s 51 per cent majority stake in the company.
The dispute pitted Fawad Ahmed Rana, managing director of Qalco and older brother, against his younger brothers, Atif Rana and Sameen Rana.
Qalco initially obtained the franchise rights of Lahore from the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) in 2015, then transferred these rights to KRR, where Qalco held 51% of the shares when it was incorporated.
Declares the transfer of shares of the parent company of Lahore Qalandars void; Younger Rana brothers must return 51% of their stake in KRR or pay Rs2.96 billion
The crux of the legal battle concerned two disputed share transfers in 2018 and 2020, which the defendants/younger brothers claimed were necessary to circumvent geopolitical tensions between the UAE and Qatar during the Abu Dhabi T10 league.
They argue that because the UAE severed ties with Qatar, it was not possible for an entity majority-owned by Qalco to participate in activities in the UAE. Therefore, Fawad Rana decided that Qalco would transfer 4% of its shares to Atif Rana to make him the majority shareholder.
However, Qalco and Fawad Rana claimed that these transfers were false, fabricated and fraudulent.
The respondents also claimed that some monies paid to KRR were for a hunt organized by the younger brothers for His Highness Shaikh Sultan, Chairman and Managing Director of Qalco.
However, the plaintiffs dispute this assertion, asserting that such a purpose does not appear in the account statements, that no evidence has been produced and that the defendants have neither specified nor proven the amounts allegedly so received and spent.
In its judgment, the court highlighted several critical failures in the respondents’ case.
He noted that Fawad Rana had provided travel history and copies of his passport to prove that he was not in Pakistan at the time the disputed transfer documents were allegedly signed.
Under cross-examination, Sameen Rana admitted that the signatures of the witness, KRR company secretary Farooq Anwar, did not match his known signatures, the court observed.
He noted that the respondents had not produced the original transfer documents and had not called the key witnesses (Farooq Anwar and Imran Ahmed) to testify, although they were available in Lahore.
He said the respondents admitted that no payment (by payment order or crossed cheque) was ever made for the shares, despite the requirements of the purported offer letters.
A turning point in the proceedings was the revelation that the younger brothers had secretly sold 30% of KRR’s shares to an individual named Mr Niazi for $5 million.
The plaintiffs alleged that this sale was hidden from Qalco and the court until revealed during cross-examination.
Justice Baqer dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim of Rs50 billion, citing lack of compelling evidence and credible evidence.
“The court is forced to consider that the transfer documents cannot be considered to have been legally and validly executed and are in any event void for lack of consideration,” the judgment states.
The court ordered that within 45 days, the younger Rana brothers must pay Qalco Rs 2.296 billion with a surcharge dating back to June 2020, or return the 51% of the shares.
The judgment said the defendants must provide a full and true account of all profits made by KRR and the proceeds of the $5 million “Niazi transaction” to the Corporation Judge of the Lahore High Court.
It is pertinent to note that the present dispute was referred to the arbitral tribunal by the Supreme Court in a judgment dated December 2, 2024. The petition was filed by the respondents against the dismissal of their application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act in a petition for rectification of the register of members of the KRR.
Published in Dawn, January 22, 2026
