DEBABRATA BASU Vs. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case involves the interpretation of Section 30 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and the principal point for determination is whether the provision in Regulation 34 for refund of premium chargeable for the training of an articled clerk, purported to have been made in exercise of the powers given under Section 30, is ultra vires the said section.

(2.) The first defendant, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, was constituted under the said Act. The plaintiff is a Fellow of the Institute. The second defendant, Prasanta Kumar Dutt, claims to be an Articled Clerk. The suit is for, inter alia, a declaration that the Articles of Apprenticeship made between the plaintiff and the said Prasanta Kumar Dutt on April 1, 1950 are valid; a declaration that the refusal by the defendant Institute to register the said articles is wrongful and illegal; a declaration that the said articled clerk be regarded as having been registered in the books of the Institute as from April 1, 1950 and for an injunction restraining the defendant Institute from disallowing the said articled clerk to take part in the examinations prescribed under the Act or the plaintiff from taking or charging a premium from the said articled clerk.

(3.) In order to appreciate the facts which give rise to the plaintiff's cause of action and the point which falls to be determined, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Act. The preamble is in these terms: