https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98405 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. en-us Mon, 21 Nov 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:48:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98405 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 21 Nov 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98405