https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293168 A plaint disclosing a substantive claim that a club resolution was ultra vires the memorandum and articles could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for want of cause of action, non-maintainability, or bar of law. An individual member could sue where the impugned act was alleged to be inconsistent with the club's constitution, and the civil court's jurisdiction was not shown to be excluded by the Companies Act remedy. Subsequent annual general meetings and resolutions did not render the suit infructuous because they merely ratified or acted upon the original resolution and did not extinguish the pleaded cause of action. The rejection application was upheld against the petitioner. en-us Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Jan 2021 18:59:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293168 A plaint disclosing a substantive claim that a club resolution was ultra vires the memorandum and articles could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for want of cause of action, non-maintainability, or bar of law. An individual member could sue where the impugned act was alleged to be inconsistent with the club's constitution, and the civil court's jurisdiction was not shown to be excluded by the Companies Act remedy. Subsequent annual general meetings and resolutions did not render the suit infructuous because they merely ratified or acted upon the original resolution and did not extinguish the pleaded cause of action. The rejection application was upheld against the petitioner. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293168