INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS Vs. DEBA BRATA BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for substituting one Sm. Anima Basu in the place and stead of one Deba Brata Basu, deceased, in the record of an appeal which has been filed by the appellant-petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the case are rather peculiar. The petitioner before us is the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Deba Brata Basu was himself a Chartered Accountant and was entitled to take in Articled Clerks for purposes of training. It appears that he did take an Articled Clerk of the name of Prasanta Kumsr Dutt and received from him by way of premium a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. The agreement which was enlered into between Deba Brata Basu and Prasanta Kumar Dutt did not ccntain any stipulation that the said sum of Rs. 2,000/- would have to be refunded to the Articled Clerk, as required under the conditions incorporated in Form L, prescribed by Rule 36 of the Rule's framed by the Institute in exercise of the powers conferred on them by Section 30 (2) (j), Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. It appears that when the agreement was sent to the Institute for registration, as required by Rule 36, the Institute refused to register it on the ground that the premium charged by a Chartered Accountant from his Articled Clerk could not be retained and that the agreement must contain a stipulation for a refund, as prescribed in Form L for agreements to be used in the case of Articled Clerks who are majors. Thereafter, Deba Brata Basu brought the suit out of which the present appeal arises, asking for a variety of declarations. He prayed for a declaration that the agreement was valid, a further declaration that the refusal of the pet'ticn^r before us to register the deed of Articles was wrongful, still another declaration that the Articled Clerk should be registered and should be deemed to have been registered in the books of the petitioner as from the date of the agreement and for certain other incidental reliefs. The Articled Clerk Prasanta Kumar Dutt was defenaant 2 in the suit.

(3.) The suit succeeded and it appears from a copy of the decree which has been set out in the paper-book that the declarations asked for by the plaintiff were given. In addition, there was an injunction restraining the petitioner "from disallowing the plaintiff to charge pre-mium from the defendant Prasanta Kumar Dutt," and since the suit succeeded, there was also a decree for costs against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal to this Court which is penoing; but, since then, the plaintiff Deba Brata Basu has died. Ths present application, as I have already stated, is for the substitution of the widow of Deba Brata Basu in his place and stead in the record of the appeal in order that the appeal may be prosecuted as against the party, so substituted.