PRATAP MEHTA versus SUNIL GUPTA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 1068 · Decided: 02-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1068
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
PRATAP MEHTA
v.
SUNIL GUPTA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8172-8173 of  2018)
NOVEMBER 02, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Bar Council of India Rules: r.7 –  Election held by State Bar
Council of M.P. – Notice issued for holding first meeting of newly
elected members to conduct elections for various offices and the
Committees of the State Bar Council including office of
representative member of the State Bar Council in the Bar Council
of India (BCI) – On 29.6.2014, in the meeting, a Chairman was
elected – After election of Chairman, the meeting was adjourned
and some of the members left the place of meeting and thereafter
remaining members without any further notice to the members who
had left reconvened the meeting and elected ‘SG’ as representative
member of the State Bar Council for the BCI – On the same day, i.e.
on 29.6.2014, nine members of State Bar Council objected to the
said election – On 13.7.2014, thirteen members requested to consider
a no-confidence motion against the Chairman so elected – Special
meeting was held on 2.8.2014 – The proposed no-confidence motion
against the Chairman was withdrawn and the Chairman declared
all the elections except his own as void – All other office bearers
and members who were elected submitted their resignation except
‘SG’ who refused to resign – Fresh election were held in which ‘PM’
was declared elected as representative member of the Bar Council
for the BCI – Election petition filed by ‘SG’ was dismissed by the
BCI – Writ petition by State Bar Council and by ‘SG’ – High Court
held that election of ‘SG’ and ‘PM’ both were invalid – Appeal by
‘PM’ and BCI – Held: The issue of agenda alongwith the notice is
requirement of a valid meeting and it is only in context of adjourned
meeting that no fresh agenda was to be issued – Therefore, issuance
of an agenda for conducting election on 2.8.2014 was necessary –
Further, r.7 of  BCI Rules required notice by the Secretary of the
State Council fixing a date for the election of the member to the
Council – High Court was, thus, right in its view that election of
‘PM’ on 2.8.2014 as member of the BCI was not a valid election –
1068
[2018] 11 S.C.R. 1068
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1069
Both the elections dated 29.6.2014 and 2.8.2014 to elect a member
in the BCI having been held to be invalid, High Court was right in
issuing directions for conducting a fresh election to elect a member
in the BCI – In view of the dismissal of the appeals, the election
already conducted on 12.8.2018 be given effect to by all
concerned – Advocates Act, 1961 – s.49.
Writ jurisdiction: Scope of – Held: The findings of the fact
reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the
appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ
proceedings – Bar Council of India Rules.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:  1.1  A conjoint reading of Rule 2, 3 and 7 of Chapter
I of Part II of the Bar Council of India Rules indicated that for
holding election of a member of Bar Council of India to be elected
by State Bar Council, notice and agenda has to be issued by the
Secretary of the State Bar Council, which is a statutory
requirement.  There is no issue between the parties regarding
the fact that agenda dated 09.06.2014 was issued for the meeting
of the members of the State Bar Council on 29.06.2014 including
the agenda for electing a member from the State Bar Council to
the Bar Council of India.  A perusal of the proceeding indicated
that all 25 elected members and Advocate General, who was Ex-
officio member was present and meeting started at 11.00 am and
by 12.00 noon, the election of the Chairman was completed.  The
Minutes record that for greeting the newly elected Chairman
and to see-off Advocate General, the proceeding of the meeting
were stayed/adjourned and thereafter again the meeting started
in presence of members for election of rest of the office bearers
and members of the Committees.  [Paras 17, 18]  [1080-B-D]
1.2  The proceeding dated 29.06.2014 also contained a
resolution by which name of ‘SG’ was proposed and unanimously
approved as representative of the State Bar Council to the Bar
Council of India. On 29.06.2014 itself, 9 members submitted a
letter addressed to Chairman of the State Bar Council that no
information of holding of adjourned meeting after 2.00 pm was
received by them, hence adjourned meeting be called for
completing the rest of the elections. To the same eff

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.