<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1999 (12) TMI 863 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182736</link>
    <description>Membership cessations under society bye-laws were examined against the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, and Rule 7(A) was treated as consistent with Section 2(b) because failure to pay the annual subscription by the stipulated date meant the member was no longer duly continuing in membership for that year. The Court also rejected the challenge that the rule was harsh or arbitrary, but read it down so that a member who had in fact paid, or who had sufficient cause for delay, could raise the matter before the society before cessation operated. On that construction, the consequential directions based on invalidity of the rule could not survive and were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 May 2016 17:34:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428673" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (12) TMI 863 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182736</link>
      <description>Membership cessations under society bye-laws were examined against the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, and Rule 7(A) was treated as consistent with Section 2(b) because failure to pay the annual subscription by the stipulated date meant the member was no longer duly continuing in membership for that year. The Court also rejected the challenge that the rule was harsh or arbitrary, but read it down so that a member who had in fact paid, or who had sufficient cause for delay, could raise the matter before the society before cessation operated. On that construction, the consequential directions based on invalidity of the rule could not survive and were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>