Supreme Court Upholds Election Of Office Bearers Of Eastern India Regional Council Of ICSI

The Supreme Court has set aside the Calcutta High Court judgment that quashed the election of the office bearers of the Eastern India Regional Council of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India.

The High Court seriously erred in setting aside the election on the ground that the meeting was not presided over by the Vice Chairman., the bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh observed while allowing the appeal filed by ICSI and the elected Chairman against the High Court judgment.

In the election, Mr. Anil Kumar Dubey was duly elected as Chairman for the remaining period (for the period 19.01.2022 to 18.01.2023). 

The bench noted that the High Court had relied on Regulation 92(2) of the Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982, to hold that Vice Chairman ought to have presided over the meeting. Referring to the said regulation and also regulation 117(2), the bench observed that Regulation 92(2) shall be applicable only in a case of absence and not in a case where the post of Chairman and/or office bearer has fallen vacant.

"There is a distinction between the absence and the post fallen vacant. Regulation 92(2) shall be applicable in a case where the Chairman and/or the office bearer though is not disqualified but is absent for some reason. Regulation 117(2) shall be applicable in a case where the elected member of the Regional Council has been disqualified on he being found guilty of any professional or other misconduct and awarded penalty of fine. Therefore, in case of a vacation of office as per Regulation 117(2), such post fallen vacant is required to be filled in by election by electing another person from amongst its members to hold the office for the remaining period of a year (Regulation 119(2))

The court also noted that under Regulation 114(4) whether any dispute arises regarding any election to a Regional Council, the matter may be referred by the candidate concerned within 30 days from the date of the declaration of the result of the election, to the President and the decision shall be final.

"The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition challenging the validity of the election. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that even as per Regulation 114(4), the election can be challenged by the candidate concerned. In the present case respondent no.1 who challenged the election of the office bearers did not even contest the election. Under the circumstances the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition challenging the election at the instance of the respondent no.1 who even did not contest the election of the office bearers", the bench observed while allowing the appeal.

Case details

Institute Of Company Secretaries of India vs Biman Debnath | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 945 | CA 8039 OF 2022 | 7 November 2022 | Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh 

For Parties: Mr. Ashish Jacob Mathew, Adv. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Srinivas Kotni, Adv. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Sandeep Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Bankey Bihari, AOR Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Adv. Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv.

Headnotes

Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982 ; Regulation 92(2) -  There is a distinction between the absence and the post fallen vacant. Regulation 92(2) shall be applicable only in a case of absence and not in a case where the post of Chairman and/or office bearer has fallen vacant. (Para 4.4)

Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982 ; Regulations 117(2), 119(2) - Regulation 117(2) shall be applicable in a case where the elected member of the Regional Council has been disqualified on he being found guilty of any professional or other misconduct and awarded penalty of fine. Therefore, in case of a vacation of office as per Regulation 117(2), such post fallen vacant is required to be filled in by election by electing another person from amongst its members to hold the office for the remaining period of a year (Regulation 119(2)). (Para 4.4)

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 226 -  Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982 ; Regulation 114(4) - Calcutta High Court set aside election of office bearers of EIRC of ICSI allowing a writ petition filed by a person who did not contest the election - In view of Regulation 114(4) of the Regulations, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition challenging the validity of the election. Even otherwise, even as per Regulation 114(4), the election can be challenged by the candidate concerned - The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition challenging the election at the instance of the respondent no.1 who even did not contest the election of the office bearers.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment