AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srinivasan J.
The contention of the petitioner is that u/s 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ""the Act""), it is not necessary
that each branch of the firm of the petitioner shall be in the charge of a separate member of the institute. According to the petitioner, one member
of the institute can be in charge of several branches, under the said section. For that purpose, reliance is placed upon certain resolutions passed by
the Council of Chartered Accountants. One of the resolutions, as extracted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, reads as follows :
Resolved that the requirement of section 27 of a member being in charge of an office of a chartered accountant or a firm of such chartered
accountants shall be satisfied only if the member is actively associated with such office. Such association shall be deemed to exist if the member
resides in the place where the office is situated for a period of not less than 182 days in a year or if he attends the said office for a period of not
less than 182 days in a year or in such other circumstances, as in the opinion of the executive committee, establish such active association.
It is contended that u/s 15, the sanctions of the Council having been specified, the resolutions have been passed only in discharge of such
functions and, therefore, the resolutions are binding on the institute as well as the members of the institute.
I am unable to accept any of the above contentions. The statutory provision in section 27 of the Act is very clear. It reads as follows :
Maintenance of branch offices. - (1) Where a chartered accountant in practice or a firm of such chartered accountants has more than one
office in India each one of such offices shall be in the separate charge of a member of the institute :
Provided that the Council may in suitable cases exempt any chartered accountant in practice or a firm of such chartered accountants from the
operation of this sub-section.
(2) Every chartered accountant in practice or a firm of such chartered accountants maintaining more than one office shall send to the Council a list
of offices and the person in charge thereof and shall keep the Council informed of any changes in relation thereto.
When the section uses the expression that each one of the branch office shall be in the separate charge of a member of the institute, it means
beyond doubt that in each branch, there must be at least one member of the institute. If one member of the institute is in charge of more than one
branch, it cannot be said to be a separate charge of a member of the institute. The position is made clearer by sub-section (2) thereof, according to
which, each chartered accountant in practice maintaining more than one office, shall send to the Council a list of offices and the persons in charge
thereof. Therefore, the section contemplates one member to be in charge of each branch.
The resolutions passed by the Council do not and cannot run counter to the provisions of the statute. The resolutions must be understood only in
consonance with the provisions of the statute and a harmonious interpretation should be given. Accordingly, the resolution would only mean that if
a member is in charge of an office, he shall be present in the station for a period not less than 182 days in a year. It cannot be interpreted in any
other manner.
Thus, there is no merit in the contention put forward by the petitioner that it shall be permitted to have two branches, one in Pondicherry and
another in Madras, both of which can be in the charge of one member of the institute. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No
costs.