TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules suit against unregistered association 'Om Press' not maintainable due to illegal status. Suit proceeds against specific defendants.</h1> <h3>Madan Gopal Versus Shewal Dass</h3> The court held that the suit against the unregistered association, 'Om Press,' was not maintainable due to its illegal status. It determined that the ... Associations and partnerships exceeding certain numbers – Prohibition of Issues:1. Maintainability of the suit against an unregistered association.2. Whether the pooling contract formed an illegal partnership or association.3. Inter-dependence of rights and liabilities of parties in the suit for accounts.4. Amendment of the plaint to sue individual members of the association.Detailed Analysis:1. The first issue addressed in the judgment was the maintainability of the suit against an unregistered association, referred to as the 'Om Press.' The plaintiff contended that the suit was maintainable against the association, even though it consisted of more than 20 members and was not registered as required by the Indian Companies Act. However, the court held that the association was illegal due to non-registration and therefore not recognizable by law. The court also noted that the plaintiff could potentially sue individual members of the association separately, but amendment of the plaint for this purpose was not allowed due to various complex issues that may arise.2. The judgment then delved into whether the pooling contract between the parties constituted an illegal partnership or association under Section 4 of the Indian Companies Act. The defendants argued that the four parties to the contract formed an illegal partnership, rendering the contract unenforceable. However, the court analyzed the terms of the contract and concluded that the parties did not form a partnership or association for carrying on business jointly. The court highlighted that the agreement did not provide for joint management or sharing of losses, indicating that the parties were not engaged in a collective business venture. Consequently, the suit against defendants Nos. 1 and 3 was deemed maintainable.3. The judgment also addressed the inter-dependence of rights and liabilities of the parties in the suit for accounts. The defendants contended that since the suit could not proceed against the 'Om Press,' it was not maintainable against the other defendants as well. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the agreement allowed each party to claim their share of profits independently of the others. The court found no valid objection to the preliminary decree against defendants Nos. 1 and 3, ruling in favor of the plaintiff on this issue.4. Lastly, the judgment considered the plaintiff's request to amend the plaint to sue the individual members of the 'Om Press' instead of the association. The court declined the amendment, citing various complexities that could arise from such a change. Factors such as the fluctuating membership of the association, the plaintiff's knowledge of its illegal status, and the potential for members to claim their share in profits as a set-off were highlighted as reasons for not allowing the amendment. The court concluded that the plaintiff should proceed against the members of the 'Om Press' separately if advised to do so.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
