https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199864 A litigant who accepted a compromise arrangement and actively participated in the fresh election process was estopped from later challenging the earlier meeting and the Registrar's consequential order. The statutory rule governing election of the Union Chairman prevailed over any conflicting bye-law, so the bye-law was ultra vires and ineffective; the Chairman could validly be elected at a subsequent meeting of the elected Directors. The Registrar's prior approval did not compel election of only a non-official Chairman because the proviso was permissive, not mandatory, and no suppression or mala fides was shown. The challenge to re-election of Directors also failed because the petitioner had himself proposed and supported those names. en-us Tue, 05 Nov 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199864 A litigant who accepted a compromise arrangement and actively participated in the fresh election process was estopped from later challenging the earlier meeting and the Registrar's consequential order. The statutory rule governing election of the Union Chairman prevailed over any conflicting bye-law, so the bye-law was ultra vires and ineffective; the Chairman could validly be elected at a subsequent meeting of the elected Directors. The Registrar's prior approval did not compel election of only a non-official Chairman because the proviso was permissive, not mandatory, and no suppression or mala fides was shown. The challenge to re-election of Directors also failed because the petitioner had himself proposed and supported those names. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Nov 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199864