TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for want of cause of action, non-maintainability of an individual member's suit, or bar of law. (ii) Whether the suit had become infructuous because of subsequent annual general meetings and consequent resolutions.
Issue (i): Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for want of cause of action, non-maintainability of an individual member's suit, or bar of law.
Analysis: The plaint disclosed a clear challenge to a resolution said to be contrary to the memorandum and articles of association and to the object of the club. For the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11, the Court confined itself to the plaint and the documents incorporated by reference. The earlier challenge to temporary injunction had proceeded on the footing that the club's power to deal with its property had to be read harmoniously with the object for which the company was formed. An individual member could maintain a suit where the impugned act was alleged to be ultra vires or inconsistent with the constitution of the club, and the absence of leave under Order 1 Rule 8 did not by itself render the plaint defective. The civil court's jurisdiction was not shown to be barred, and the remedy under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not exclude a civil suit for a declaration that a resolution was ultra vires.
Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected on the grounds urged, and the issue was decided against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the suit had become infructuous because of subsequent annual general meetings and consequent resolutions.
Analysis: Subsequent events can justify dismissal where the original proceeding has truly become infructuous, but the Court found that the later meetings merely ratified or acted upon the original resolution and did not supersede or withdraw it. The foundation of the suit therefore remained alive, and the later events did not extinguish the controversy pleaded in the plaint.
Conclusion: The suit had not become infructuous, and the issue was decided against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The order rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 was upheld, and the revisional challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 where it discloses a substantive claim that a corporate resolution is ultra vires the governing constitution, and subsequent ratifying steps do not render the suit infructuous unless they truly extinguish the original cause of action.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
