Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Appeal overturns judgment, upholds member classification under Exim Policy. Petition dismissed, no costs.</h1> <h3>Apparel Export Promotion Council Versus All India Garment Exporters Common Cause Guild</h3> Apparel Export Promotion Council Versus All India Garment Exporters Common Cause Guild - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the classification of membership into 'Member Exporters' and 'Registered Exporters'.2. Consistency of the appellant's membership regulations with the Exim Policy.3. The democratic nature of the appellant's election process.4. Applicability of the doctrine of ultra vires to the appellant's Articles of Association.5. Impact of amendments to the Exim Policy and Model Bye-Laws on the appellant's membership regulations.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Classification of Membership into 'Member Exporters' and 'Registered Exporters':The primary issue is whether the appellant, a Company incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, is entitled to have two kinds of memberships, namely 'Member Exporters' with voting rights and 'Registered Exporters' without voting rights. The respondents/writ petitioners, who are non-voting members, contended that this classification deprived them of their rights to participate in the management and elections of the appellant. The learned Single Judge quashed this classification, holding that it was ultra vires the Exim Policy and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.2. Consistency of the Appellant's Membership Regulations with the Exim Policy:The learned Single Judge held that the appellant owes its existence to the Exim Policy, which does not envisage two kinds of members. The Exim Policy requires democratization of its members and democratic elections of its office bearers. The appellant's classification of members was deemed inconsistent with these requirements. However, the appellant argued that it does not owe its existence to the Exim Policy and that its Articles of Association are only required to comply with the Companies Act. The appellant further contended that the Exim Policy, as amended in March 2000, allows for such classification and that the Model Bye-Laws prescribed under the amended Exim Policy permit voting and non-voting members.3. The Democratic Nature of the Appellant's Election Process:The respondents/writ petitioners argued that the classification of members was undemocratic and created a small caucus that appropriated the management of the appellant. The learned Single Judge agreed, stating that restricting the right to participate in elections to only 10% of its members was not democratic. The appellant countered by stating that the classification is reasonable and has a rational nexus to the object of ensuring that EPCs provide necessary support to the Central Government in framing and implementing the Exim Policy.4. Applicability of the Doctrine of Ultra Vires to the Appellant's Articles of Association:The appellant argued that the doctrine of ultra vires cannot apply to its Memorandum or Articles of Association, which are only required to comply with the Companies Act. The learned Single Judge, however, held that the appellant's membership regulations were ultra vires the Exim Policy. The appellant contended that it is not a monopolistic body and that its functioning is autonomous and regulated by its Memorandum and Articles of Association.5. Impact of Amendments to the Exim Policy and Model Bye-Laws on the Appellant's Membership Regulations:The amendments to the Exim Policy in 2000, which provided for Model Bye-Laws allowing classification into voting and non-voting members, were not challenged by the respondents/writ petitioners. The court noted that the amendments knocked off the basis of the relief claimed by the respondents/writ petitioners. The appellant's Membership Regulations, framed in accordance with the Model Bye-Laws, were thus deemed valid. The court also emphasized the importance of such classification to prevent the management of the appellant from being taken over by those not genuinely interested in the export of garments.Conclusion:The appeal succeeded, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside. The court upheld the appellant's classification of members into voting and non-voting categories, stating that it was consistent with the amended Exim Policy and necessary to prevent the hijacking of the appellant's management by non-serious exporters. The writ petition of the respondents/writ petitioners was dismissed, with no order as to costs due to the appellant's failure to highlight the amendments of the year 2000 during the arguments before the learned Single Judge.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found