Company definition for statutory remedies: associations under section 26 qualify for register-rectification relief when articles prescribe automatic cessation.
The court held that an association incorporated under section 26 is to be treated as a company for purposes of section 38 because section 26(3) confers the privileges and obligations of limited companies and the statutory scheme (including provisions applicable to bodies without share capital) supports a broad meaning of "company"; accordingly section 38 remedies apply. On membership, the court found the firm's written notice effected cessation under article 9 on expiry of the notice period, rejected arguments treating the communications as ineffective resignations or requiring re-election, and ordered rectification of the register of members in favour of the petitioners.
Issues: (i) Whether a body incorporated under section 26 of the Indian Companies Act (an association not for profit) falls within the meaning of "company" for the purposes of section 38 of the Indian Companies Act; (ii) Whether the register of members should be rectified by removing the name of Hazarimal & Company where the association's articles provide that an ordinary member ceases to be a member on expiry of the notice period.
Issue (i): Whether an association registered under section 26 of the Indian Companies Act is a "company" for invocation of section 38 of the Indian Companies Act.
Analysis: The Court examined the text of the Act and the effect of section 26(3), which confers on associations registered under section 26 the privileges and obligations of limited companies except in specified limited respects. Headings and sub-headings were held not to override clear statutory language. Provisions elsewhere in the Act (including sections 28(1), 30, and 31(1)) demonstrate applicability to bodies without share capital and support a broad meaning of "company." The definition in section 2(2) was read consistently with section 26 and the statutory scheme.
Conclusion: The association registered under section 26 is a "company" for the purposes of section 38 of the Indian Companies Act; section 38 is available to such associations.
Issue (ii): Whether the register of members must be rectified by removing Hazarimal & Company where the firm's written notice effected cessation of membership under article 9 of the articles of association.
Analysis: The Court analysed the communications (telegram and letter) sent by Hazarimal & Company and the terms of article 9 which provide that ordinary members cease to be members on expiry of the notice period. The Court rejected arguments treating the documents as mere "resignations" requiring acceptance or as ineffective because not a formal re-election. The withdrawal purported later did not comply with the election procedure in the articles. The Court further held that the court's discretion under section 38(2) is not arbitrary and where facts show entitlement to relief the court should normally grant rectification.
Conclusion: The facts established that Hazarimal & Company ceased to be a member on expiry of the notice period under article 9, and the register of members must be rectified by removing their name; the petition is allowed.
Final Conclusion: The Court concluded that associations registered under section 26 are subject to the remedies of section 38 and, on the established facts, the register of members must be rectified in favour of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: An association registered under section 26 of the Indian Companies Act enjoys the privileges and is subject to the obligations of a company under the Act (per section 26(3)), and where the articles provide for automatic cessation of membership on expiry of notice, the court must order rectification of the register under section 38 when the applicant establishes entitlement to that relief.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
