Holding

A nomination must actually reach the Secretary by the prescribed deadline; the proviso only relaxes the rule for hand‑delivered nominations with acknowledgment, and the High Court's broader construction was erroneous.

Summary

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and its Secretary rejected the nominations of Inder Chand Jain for election to the Council because the nominations, sent by registered post on May 17 and 18, 1991, were received after the deadline of 5 p.m. on May 21, 1991. Jain challenged the rejection before the Bombay High Court, which held that if the Secretary was satisfied the nominations were posted at least 48 hours before the deadline, they should be deemed received in time, relying on the proviso to Regulation 87(2). The ICAI appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the regulation requires the nomination to actually reach the Secretary by the prescribed time, and that the proviso only relaxes the rule when a nomination is delivered against an acknowledgment before the deadline. The Supreme Court held that a nomination must in fact reach the Secretary by the deadline; the proviso merely allows a hand‑delivered nomination with acknowledgment to be treated as timely if the Secretary is satisfied it was posted 48 hours earlier. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with the Court directing that only nominations delivered against an acknowledgment before the deadline be considered timely, though it permitted the pending election to be postponed and nominations received up to the end of August 1991 to be treated as timely if the 48‑hour posting condition is satisfied.

Issues considered

Whether a nomination forwarded by registered post that is received after the prescribed deadline can be deemed timely under Regulation 87(2) and its proviso.
Interpretation of the phrase "so as to reach him not later than 5 p.m. on the specified date" in Regulation 87(2).
Whether the Bombay High Court erred in construing the proviso to treat such nominations as received in time.

Legislation cited

Chartered Accountants Act, 1949s. 10(1), s. 30, s. 9

Subjects

Chartered Accountants ActRegulation 87nomination deadlineregistered postelection lawinterpretation of regulationsprovisohigh court judgmentspecial leave petition

Judgment

INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF A
·INDIA AND ANOTHER
v.
INDER CHAND JAIN

SEPTEMBER 10, 1991
B
[M.H. KANIA, N.M. KASLIWAL AND
M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.]

Chartered Accountants Act, 1949-Section JO-Chartered
Accountants Regulations-Regulation 87(2)-"So as to reach him not
later than 5.00 P.M. on the specified date"-Construct(.on of.
c
Chartered . Accountants A·ct, 1949-Section 30--Chartered
Accountants Regulations-Regulations 82, 87-Nominations for elec-
tion to the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
sent by registered post on I7.5. I991 and I8.5. 1991 r.eceived by the
Secretary on 23.5.1991 and 27.5.1991, respectively and not by the D
specified time and date, '(5.00 P.M. on 21.5.1991)-Liable to be
rejected.

The Respondent forwarded bis nominations for election to the
Connell of the appellant No. 1-Institnte by registered post to the
Secretary, Appellant No. 1, on May 17, 1991, and May 18, 1991. They E
were received on May 23, 1991, and May 27, 1991 respectively .and were
rejected on the gronnd that they were received after the time and date
fixed for the reciept of the nominations, i.e., S.00 p.m. on May 21,
1991.
i
• Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High F
Conrt seeking a. writ of certiorari to quash the order rejecting his
nominations.

- The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition
holding that once the Secretary was satisfied that a nomination bad
been duly forwarded by the registered post to him at least 48 hours G
before the specified date and time, it must be deemed to have been
received within the time.provided.

The Institnte and its Secretary filed the SLP in this Court contend-
ing that under Regulation 87(2), the nominations must be forwarded by
registered post and must reach the Secretary of the Council not later H

921
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R.

than S.00 p.m. on the specified date, i.e., May 21, 1991; that the pro-
A
viso came into play only ~hen a nomination was delivered to the Secre·
tary against an acknowledgement before the specified time and
specified date and the Secretary was satisfied that a valid nomination ·i\
had been duly forwarded by registered post to him at least 48 hours f,
before the specified date and time; and that the High Conrt had erred in
B disregarding the opening part of the proviso which read "Provided that
a nomination delivered against an acknowledgement before the afore-
said time and date .•• "

The respondent contended that what was intended to be prescri-
bed by the nse of expression, "so as to reach him not later than S.00
p.m. on the specified date" in clanse (ii) ofsub-regulation (2) of Regula- •
c lion 87, was that the nominations which had been forwarded by
registered post to the Secretary 48 hours before the specified time and
date of the election must be deemed to have reached the Secretary in
time.

D Allowing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: 1. The entire scheme or sub-regulation (2) or Regulation
87 and the proviso shows that one of the main pre-conditions required .;
before a nomination can be said to have been duly received, is that a
valid nomination must be reeeived by the Secretary before the specified
E tim.e and date. [926C]

2. It is true that th.e rule, in terms, requires that the nominations
should be sent by registered post, but taking into account the fact that
such a nomination might not be received by the Secretary even though )
posted more than 48 hours before the specified time and date, it was
F provided that if the nomination was delivered by hand to the Secretary
before the specified time and date against acknowledgement, that nomi-
nation would be treated as having been validly received provided the
Secretary was satisfied that the nomination was forwarded by regis-
tered post to him by the candidate 48 hours prior to the specified time
and date. [926D-E]
G
3. What is meant by the nse of the expression, "so as to reach him ~:
not later than S.00 p.m. on the specified date" in sub-regulation (2) of
Regulation 87, is that the nomination must be forwarded by registeroo
.post to the Secretary So as to reach him in fact or actually reach him not
later than 5.00. p.m. on the specified date. The rigour of the rule is
H relaxed by the proviso under which if a proper nomination was
INSTITUTE OF C.A. v. J.C. JAIN [KANIA, J ;I 923

delivered against an acknowledgement before the specified time and
A
date, it would be deemed to have been forwarded and to have reached
within the time prescribed provided the Secretary was satisfied that the
• nomination had been duly forwarded by the r~tered post at least 48
hours before the specified time and date. [926G·927 A)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3573 B
of 1991.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.6.1991 of the Bombay
High Court in W.P. No. 1926 of 1991.

G. Ramaswamy, Attorney General, K.K. Jain, G. Banerjee,
Pramod Dayal and A jay K. Jain for the Appellants.
c
S.V. Mehta, A.K. Sanghi, Manjul Bajpai and S. Grover for the
Respondent.

Gopal Subramanium, Manjul Bajpai and S. Grover for the D
Intervenor.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KANIA, J. Leave granted. Counsel heard.
E
This appeal is being disposed of, by consent, at the stage of
granting of special leave in view of the urgency. Appellant No. 1 is the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, a body incorporated
under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to
\. as "the Act"). Appellant No. 2 is the. Secretary of Appellant No. l;
Institute. Appellant No. 1 was formed with the object of regulating the F
profession of the Chartered Accountants. Section 9 of the Act pro·
vi.des for the constitution of the Council of Appellant No. 1, Institute,
and prescribes that the affairs of the said Institute shall be managed by
the said Council which comprises not more than 24 persons elected by
the fellows of the Institute and 6 persons nominated by the Central
Govemment .. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act provides that the G
~ election of the said Council shall be conducted in the prescribed
manner. Section 30 of the Act confers powers upon the Council to
make regulations for the· purpose of carrying out the objects of the
Act. In exercise of the said powers, the Council framed regulations
known as "the Chartered Accountants Regulations" (hereinafter
referred to as "the Regulations"). Chapter VI of the said Regulations H
i_;
I
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1991) 3 S.C.R.

deals with the topic of "Elections". Regulation 82 provides that the
A
Council shall notify in the Gazette of India, at least three months
before the date of an election, the dates fixed for various stages of
election of the members of the Council, like receipt of nominations,
scrutiny of nominations, withdrawal of nominations, polling dates and
so on. Regulation 87(1) provides that the Council shall publish in the
• ..
B Gazette of India a notice, setting out the number of members to be
elected and calling for nominations of candidates for election by a
specified date, at least three months prior to the date of election.
Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 87 which is the regulation coming up
for construction before us reads as follows:

(2) The nomination of a candidate shall be
c •
(i) In the appropriate form duly signed by the c~ndidate
and by the proposer and the seconder both of whom shall
be persons entitled to vote in the election in the relevant
regional constituency; and·
D
(ii) forwarded by registered post to the Secretary by name
so as to reach him not later than 5 p.m. on the specified
date.
I
Provided that a nomination delivered against an ack-
E nowledgement before the aforesaid time and date shall be
deemed to have been so forwarded and so having reached if
the Secretary is satisfied that the nomination has been duly
fowarded by registered post at least 48 hours before the
aforesaid time and date."
J
F Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 87 provides inter alia for the
contents of the nominations. We are not concerned with the rest of the
regulations for the purpose of this appeal.

The final time for the receipt of the nominations was fixed as
5.00 p.m. on 20th May, 1991, and it was extended to 5.00 p.m. on 21st
G May, 1991.

Th.e respondent forwarded his nominations by registered post to ~
0

the Secretary on May 17, 1991, and May 18, 1991, respectively. The
nominations, however, did not reach the Secretary by 5.00 p.m. on
May 21, 1991, being the final time and date prescribed for the receipt
H of the nominations. Actually, they were received by the Secretary of
INSTITUTE OF C.A. v. LC. JAIN. [KANIA, J.] 925

the Council by registered post on May 23, 1991, and May 27, 1991,
A
respectively. These nominations were rejected on the ground that they
were received after the timdixed for the receipt of the nominations and
;. the name of the respondent was not included in the list of the candi-
dates who .had filed their nominations for election to the Council.
Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition in the Bombay
High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order rejecting his B
nominations: The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, which
decided the writ petition, took the view that a plain reading ot sub-
regulation (2) of Regulation 87 made it clear that the only mode pre-
scribed by the. Regulations is to tender the nomination by registered
post and the rigour of the rule that the nominations must reach before
the specified date and specified time, was relieved by the insertion of (,
the proviso. It was held by the Division Bench that once the Secretary
was satisfied that a nomination had been duly fowarded by registered
post to him at least 48 hours before the specified date and time, it must
be deemed to have been received within the time provided. On the
basis of this conclusion the High Court made the rule absolute. It is the
correctness of this decision .which is sought to be challenged before us. D

It was submitted by learned Attorney General who appeared on
behalf of the appellants that under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation
87, the general rule is that the nominations must be forwarded by
registered post and must reach the Secretary of the Council not later
than 5.00 p.m. on the specified date, the specifie.d date in this case E
being May 21, 1991. It was furthe~ urged by him that the proviso
which, to a certain extent, relaxed this rule came into play only where
a nomination was delivered to the Secretary against an acknowledge-
ment before the specified time and specified date and the Secretary
was satisfied that a valid nomination had been duly fowarded by
registered post to him at least 48 hours before the specified date and F
time. It was contended by learned Attorney General that the learned
· Judges of the Bombay High Court had erred in disregarding the open-
ing part of the proviso which read "provided that a nomination
delivered against an acknowledgement before the aforesaid time and
date ......... "
G
In our view, there is a considerable force in the submission of
learned Attorney General. It is trite to say that in construing any
regulation or rule it would not be proper to ignore any part of it except
in special circumstances. Moreover, accepting the construction placed
by the Bombay High Court on the said proviso would lead to a startl-
ing result; for examle, a nomination might have to be treated as H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R.

received within the specified time and date-even though-it might never
A
have reached the Secretary at all or might reach the Secretary after the
date of the election, merely because the Secretary is satisfied that the
nomination had been duly forwarded to him by registered post at least
48 hours before the specified time and date. It is not unknown that
the letters sent by registered post are occasionally received after a long
8 delay of several weeks and on some occasions they do not reach at all.
If the construction placed on the said proviso in the impugned judg-
ment were accepted, in such a case as aforestated the entire election
would have to be set aside leading to great confasion and hardship.
This consequence must necessarily follow if the view taken by the
Bombay High Court were to be accepted. In our opinion,the entire
scheme of sub-regulation (2) and the proviso shows that one of the
c main pre-conditions required before a nomination can be said to have
been duly received, is that a valid nomination must be received hy the
Secretary before the specified time and date.

It is true that the rule, in terms, requires that the nominations
D should be sent by registered post, but taking into account the fact that
such a nomination might not be received l)y the Secretary even though
posted more than 48 hours before the specified time and date, it was
provided that if the nomination was delivered, let us say, by hand to ,
the Secretary before the specified time and date against acknowledge-
ment, that nomination ·would be treated as having been validly re-
E ceived provided the Secretary was satisfied that the nomination was
forwarded by registered post to him by the candidate 48 hours prior to
the specified time and date. It was contended on behalf of the respon-
. dent that in the light of the proviso to sub-regulation (2) of Regulation
87 what was intended to be prescribed by the use of the expression 'so
as to reach him not later than 5.00 p.m. on the specified date' in clause
)
p; (ii) of sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 87, was that the nominations
which had been forwarded by registered post to the Secretary 48 hours
before the specified time and date of the election must be deemed to
have reached the Secretary in tiine. In our view, this contention is
fallacious. What ·is meant by the use of the aforesaid expression in
sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 87 is that the nomination must be
G forwarded by registered post to the Secretary so as to reach him in fact
or actually reach him not later than 5.00 p.m. on the specified date.
Tlie rigour of the rule is relaxed by the proviso under which if the
nomination was delivered against an acknowledgement before· the
specified time and date, it would be deemed to have been forwarded
and to have reached as provided in clause (ii) of sub-regulation (2)
H referred to earlier provided the Secretary was satisfied that the nomi-
I
I
I
. I
INSTITUTE OF C.A. v. l.C. JAIN [KANIA, J.]: I 927

nation had been duly forwarded by registered post at .J:aj48 hours A
before the aforesaid time and date. /
I j

> In view of the reasoning set out earlier, we set asi\le the judg-
ment and order passed by the Bombay High Court and /"e hold that
the nomination of the respondent was liable to be rejiected on the
B
ground that it was not received in time, as the respondenv had failed to
deliver to the Secretary against an acknowledgment b nomination
before the specified time and date. Hmy.ever, we find that, in the
present case, the elections have already been postponed and the pro-
posed dates for elections will now to be probably fixec\: in October or
November, 1991. In these circumstances, we direct tha/t all the nomi-
nations received upto the end of August 1991 must \be treated as c
received in time provided that the Secretary is satisfied t~at they were
forwarded by registered post 48 hours before the lite and date
specified earlier. The Council may fix the elections on ny date they
consider proper. The appeal is allowed to the extent afor said.
'
0
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the caS@,\there will be
no order as to costs. • i

We may suggest that if the Council so thinks, the reg~lations may
• be suitably amended so as to leave no room for ambiguity, a difficult
task indeed. ·

V.P.R. App~al allowed.
I'
I