<?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>1990 (8) TMI 410 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281032</link>
    <description>Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, was confined to audit of society accounts and did not bar a claim for rendition of accounts. Section 25 applied only to disputes concerning election or continuance in office of office-bearers before the prescribed authority, subject to its statutory conditions. A civil suit challenging the election of office-bearers and seeking rendition of accounts therefore remained within ordinary civil jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the special election-dispute procedure did not by itself exclude that remedy. The suit was maintainable and the statutory bar did not apply.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 May 2019 17:44:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=573475" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (8) TMI 410 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281032</link>
      <description>Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, was confined to audit of society accounts and did not bar a claim for rendition of accounts. Section 25 applied only to disputes concerning election or continuance in office of office-bearers before the prescribed authority, subject to its statutory conditions. A civil suit challenging the election of office-bearers and seeking rendition of accounts therefore remained within ordinary civil jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the special election-dispute procedure did not by itself exclude that remedy. The suit was maintainable and the statutory bar did not apply.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281032</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>