Stock exchange bye-laws and arbitration clause upheld where regulatory purpose and pre-recognition framework displaced statutory default rules.

A stock exchange was held not to be an illegal association under section 11(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 because its dominant object was regulation and control of securities dealings, not carrying on business for gain; incidental facilities and fees did not convert it into a profit-making association. Bye-law 250 was also upheld because it expressly provided an alternative arbitrator-appointment mechanism, displacing the default rule in section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 rather than conflicting with it. The pre-recognition bye-laws were valid without publication under section 9(4) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, as that requirement applied only to post-recognition bye-laws made under section 9.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Stock Exchange was an illegal association under section 11(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 because it was formed for carrying on business for gain. (ii) Whether bye-law 250 was void for conflict with section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. (iii) Whether the pre-recognition bye-laws of the Stock Exchange required publication under section 9(4) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and were ineffective for want of such publication.

Issue (i): Whether the Stock Exchange was an illegal association under section 11(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 because it was formed for carrying on business for gain.

Analysis: Section 11(2) applies only if an association of more than twenty persons is formed for carrying on business having gain as its object. The dominant purpose of the Stock Exchange was to assist, regulate and control dealings in securities and to protect brokers, dealers and the investing public. Its powers relating to buildings, safe deposit vaults, clearing house facilities and fees were incidental to that primary regulatory function. There was no provision for distribution of profits among members, and the activities were not directed to business profit in the statutory sense.

Conclusion: The Stock Exchange was not an illegal association and the challenge under section 11(2) failed.

Issue (ii): Whether bye-law 250 was void for conflict with section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

Analysis: Section 9 operates only where the arbitration agreement does not express a different intention. Bye-law 250, incorporated into the parties' contract, expressly provided for appointment of an arbitrator by the governing board or president if one party defaulted. That provision supplied the contingency dealt with by section 9 and therefore displaced the statutory default machinery rather than conflicting with it.

Conclusion: Bye-law 250 was not void and the arbitration agreement remained valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the pre-recognition bye-laws of the Stock Exchange required publication under section 9(4) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and were ineffective for want of such publication.

Analysis: Section 9(1) empowers a recognised stock exchange to make bye-laws after recognition, while section 9(4) requires publication of bye-laws made under that provision. The bye-laws in question were framed and approved before recognition and were brought into force as pre-recognition bye-laws. The statutory scheme distinguishes between pre-recognition bye-laws used for obtaining recognition under sections 3 and 4 and post-recognition bye-laws made under section 9. The publication requirement in section 9(4) therefore did not apply to the earlier bye-laws.

Conclusion: The pre-recognition bye-laws were valid despite not being published under section 9(4).

Final Conclusion: The arbitration agreement between the parties, founded on the Stock Exchange rules and bye-laws, was upheld as legally effective and subsisting.

Ratio Decidendi: A recognised stock exchange's pre-recognition bye-laws, approved as part of the process of recognition, are not bye-laws made under section 9 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and therefore do not require publication under section 9(4); likewise, an arbitration clause that expressly provides for a different appointment mechanism is not displaced by the default rule in section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

---