# PRATAP MEHTA v. SUNIL GUPTA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2018] 11 S.C.R. 1068
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-11-02
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 8172-8173 of 2018
- **Bench:** A. K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/pratap-mehta-v-sunil-gupta-ors-32231
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

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against the Chairman was withdrawn and the Chairman declared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 Exofficio 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 Coun

## Text

_Characters 0–39,988 of 56,776. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39988 for what follows._

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 Exofficio 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 effect was
another letter dated 13.07.2014 by 13 members of the Bar Council
PRATAP MEHTA v. SUNIL GUPTA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1070
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
of State. Another letter dated 13.07.2014, signed by 13 members
of the State Bar Council was submitted to the State Bar Council
requesting for convening a meeting under Rule 122A for
considering no-confidence motion against the Chairman of the
State Bar Council. The State Bar Council issued notice dated
16.07.2014 to all the members of the State Bar Council referring
to the letters received from members where election proceeding
of Vice-Chairman, Treasurer and representative to the Bar
Council of India are being disputed and no-confidence motion
was presented against the Chairman. The officiating Secretary
convened special meeting dated 02.08.2014 for disposal of these
letters received from the members of the State Bar Council. [Para
19] [1080-G-H; 1081-A-C]
2.1 Notice dated 16.07.2014 as well as dated 19.07.2014
clearly indicated that special meeting was convened for taking a
decision on the letters received from members of the Council.
Notice dated 19.07.2014 categorically mentions "in the special
meeting both the letters are to be decided". Letters dated
29.06.2014 and 13.07.2014 were referred in the notice where
following two subjects were mentioned:- Request for convening
a meeting for conducting elections of the rest of the office bearers
and members; Under Rule 122-A, considering the motion of no
confidence given by 13 members of the Bar Council against the
Chairman. Notice dated 16.07.2014 clearly indicated that it did
not contain any agenda for the meeting. The notice convening
the meeting only referred to consideration of letters received
from the members. [Paras 21, 22] [1080-G-H; 1081-A-C]
Law and Practices of Meetings, Fourteenth Edition by
Shackleton - referred to
2.2 Notices dated 16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014 were issued
not for convening any adjourned meeting rather special meeting
was convened to consider two set of letters given by members of
the Council requesting for convening a meeting for holding
elections of office bearers and the members of different
Committees including representative to Bar Council of India and
for considering no confidence motion against the Chairman of
the State Bar Council. In notice dated 16.07.2014 as well as
notice dated 19.07.2014, the subject of special meeting was thus
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1071
for disposal of letters received by the members of the Council.
The minutes of proceeding dated 29.06.2014 has recorded and
signed by Chairman containing the election of not only the
Chairman rather election of other office bearers and different
representatives, which is clear from the proceedings brought on
the record by Bar Council of India itself. It is a well established
principle that minutes of the proceeding signed by the Chairman
are prima facie evidence of proceeding and decisions recorded
therein are deemed to be valid until contrary is proved. Thus,
the letters issued by the members on 29.06.2014 and 13.07.2014
raised a dispute containing allegations disputing minutes of the
proceeding of the meeting dated 29.06.2014. Thus, it was a
disputed matter as to what actually happened on 29.06.2014, i.e.
as to whether the election of other office bearers and
representatives were validly completed on 29.06.2014 or after
the election of the Chairman, the meeting was adjourned. This
dispute was to be resolved in the special meeting dated
02.08.2014, which was clearly indicated by notice dated
16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014. 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 need to be issued.
The notices dated 16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014 having not
contained any agenda and the meeting also not being described
as adjourned meeting, issuance of agenda for the meeting was
necessary. [Paras 24, 25] [1084-D-G; 1085-E-G]
3. No election could have been conducted on 02.08.2014
for electing member to the Bar Council of India from the State
Bar Council. Further, the election of the member to the Bar
Council of India is statutorily regulated by Bar Council of India
Rules and Rule 7 require notice by the Secretary of the State
Council fixing a date for the election of the member to the Council.
Notices dated 16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014 cannot be read as notice
as required under Rule 7 for holding election of a member to the
Bar Council of India from the State Bar Council, hence, the
conduct of election of a member as a representative from State
Bar Council to Bar Council of India in the meeting dated
02.08.2014 cannot be said to be in conformity with Rule 7 of Bar
Council of India Rules. The High Court was, thus, clearly right
in its view that election of 'PM' on 02.08.2014 as member of the
PRATAP MEHTA v. SUNIL GUPTA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1072
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
Bar Council of India was not a valid election. Both the elections
dated 29.06.2014 and 02.08.2014 to elect a member in the Bar
Council of India having been held to be invalid, the High Court
was right in issuing directions for conducting a fresh election to
elect a member in the Bar Council of India, which was necessary
and just. [Para 26] [1086-A-E]
Waryam Singh and another v. Amarnath and another
AIR 1954 SC 215; Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan
and others AIR 1964 SC 477; K. Narasimhiah v. H.C.
Singri Gowda and others, AIR 1966 SCC 330; P.
Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology, AIR 1981
SC 789; V.S. Krishnan and others v. Westfort Hi-tech
Hospital Ltd. and Others (2008) 3 SCC 363 - held
inapplicable
Case Law Reference
AIR 1954 SC 215
held inapplicable
Para 27
AIR 1964 SC 477
held inapplicable
Para 27
AIR 1966 SCC 330
held inapplicable
Para 34
AIR 1981 SC 789
held inapplicable
Para 35
(2008) 3 SCC 363
held inapplicable
Para 35
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 81728173 of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2018 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA Nos.365 and 366 of 2018
WITH
C.A. Nos.8174-8177 of 2018
Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Shailendra Sharma, Ms. Deepika Kaliya,
Ms. Divya Roy, S. N. Bhat, Priyank Jain, Ravi P., D. P. Chaturvedi,
Advs. for the appellant.
Vikas Upadhyay, Ashwin Kumar Nair, Bharadwaj S., Nitin Gaur
Advs. for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. These appeals have been filed
against the common judgment dated 17.07.2018 of the High Court of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1073
Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal NO.365/2018 and other connected LPAs.
Letters Patent Appeals were filed by the appellant aggrieved by common
judgment dated 06.07.2018 of learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition(C)No.2142 of 2016 (State Bar Council of M.P. vs. Bar Council
of India & Ors.) and Writ Petition (C) No.2215 of 2016 (Sunil Gupta vs.
Bar Council of India & Ors.). Learned Single Judge vide its judgment
dated 06.07.2018 disposed of the writ petitions with certain directions.
2. The brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding
these appeals are:
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh held the elections for its
constituent members in the month of May-June, 2014. After declaration
of the result notice dated 09.06.2014 was issued for holding the first
meeting of newly elected members on 29.06.2014. Agenda for the
meeting to be held on 29.06.2014 was to conduct the elections for the
various offices and the Committees of the State Bar Council of Madhya
Pradesh including the office of its representative member in the Bar
Council of India. In these appeals we are concerned only with one
Agenda item which is to the following effect:
"
Part-B
Serial No.1: Discussion, consideration and decision
regarding the election of the representative member of the
Bar Council for the Bar Council of India."
3.
Pursuant to notice dated 09.06.2014, a meeting was held on
29.06.2014, which was presided over by the Advocate General of the
State of Madhya Pradesh and was attended by all the 25 members of
the State Bar Council of M.P. In the meeting, one Shri Rameshwar
Neekhra was elected as Chairman.
4.
The case of the respondents, who were writ petitioners before
the High Court was that in the said meeting, election for other office
bearers including election for representative member of the State Bar
Council to Bar Council of India was held in which Shri Sunil Gupta was
unanimously elected. Shri Sunil Gupta, also started working as member
representative in the Bar Council of India. On 29.06.2014, 9 members
of the State Bar Council wrote a letter to its Secretary requesting him to
organise a meeting for conducting elections to the various offices and
Committees of the State Bar Council. It was further alleged in the letter
that after the election of Chairman on 29.06.2014, the meeting has been
PRATAP MEHTA v. SUNIL GUPTA & ORS.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1074
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
adjourned and the members without any further notice to the members
who had thereafter left the place of meeting, reconvened the meeting
and elected Shri Sunil Gupta as representative of the Bar Council of
India. A letter dated 13.07.2014 was also sent to the above effect by 13
members.
5.
On 13.07.2014 another letter was sent to the Secretary by 13
members requesting to consider a no- confidence motion under Rule
122A of the State Bar Council of M.P. Rules against Shri Rameshwar
Neekhra, the Chairman. Taking cognizance of the letters dated
29.06.2014 and 13.07.2014 sent by various members to the Secretary,
notice dated 16.07.2014/19.07.2014 was issued to the members of State
Bar Council informing them of a special meeting scheduled to be held on
02.08.2014 for deciding the issues brought forth in the said letters. The
special meeting was convened on 02.08.2014. The proposed noconfidence motion against Chairman was withdrawn, Chairman relying
on the various letters sent by the members declared all the elections held
on 29.06.2014 except his own, as void. All the office bearers and members
who were elected on 29.06.2014 submitted their resignations from their
respective posts except Shri Sunil Gupta who refused to resign as
representative to the Bar Council of India. On 02.08.2014, election of
several officer bearers including representative to the Bar Council of
India was conducted in which Shri Pratap Mehta was declared elected
as representative of the State Bar Council to the Bar Council of India.
6.
Aggrieved by the Resolution dated 02.08.2014 electing Shri
Pratap Mehta, Election Petition No.01/2014 was filed by Shri Sunil
Gupta before the Bar Council of India. During pendency of the aforesaid
Election Petition, State Bar Council passed Resolution on 07.02.2015,
with a majority of 17 votes, withdrawing its earlier Resolution dated
02.08.2014, thereby re-affirming that Shri Sunil Gupta is its representative
member in the Bar Council of India. Shri Sunil Gupta filed an application
on 11.02.2015 before the Bar Council of India for seeking leave to
withdraw his Election Petition No.01/2014. However, instead of
permitting for withdrawal, Chairman of the Bar Council of India passed
an order dated 16.11.2015 observing that Pratap Mehta has prima facie
case, hence, he permitted Pratap Mehta to join as representative of the
State Bar Council in the Bar Council of India pending the final report of
the sub-committee which was constituted for enquiring into the elections
of Shri Sunil Gupta and Shri Pratap Mehta. The sub-committee submitted
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1075
its report in which report sub-committee found that election of Shri Sunil
Gupta cannot be held to be valid as representative of State Bar Council
in the Bar Council of India rather it is Shri Pratap Mehta who was
elected on 02.08.2014 in continuation of the meeting held on 29.06.2014
which meeting was held to dispose of and transact the un-transacted
business which was fixed for 29.06.2014. The Bar Council of India passed
an order dated 05.12.2015, dismissing the Election Petition filed by Shri
Sunil Gupta. Bar Council of India held that there is no infirmity in the
election of Shri Pratap Mehta as representative to the Bar Council of
India.
7.
The State Bar Council of M.P. withdrew Writ Petition (C)
No.No.973 of 2016 challenging order dated 16.11.2015 and Writ
Petition(C) No.2142 of 2016 was filed by the State Bar Council of M.P.
challenging order dated 05.12.2015 of the Bar Council of India. Another
Writ Petition (C)No.2215 of 2016 was filed by Shri Sunil Gupta
challenging order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the Bar Council of India.
Both the writ petitions were heard by the learned Single Judge and have
been decided by a common judgment dated 06.07.2018. Learned Single
Judge held that election of Shri Sunil Gupta as representative in the Bar
Council of India dated 29.06.2014 is not valid. Learned Single Judge
also held that election dated 02.08.2014 electing Shri Pratap Mehta as
representative in the Bar Council of India is also not valid it having been
held contrary to the Bar Council of India Rules.
8.
The learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 06.07.2018
allowed few of the prayers made by writ petitioners, however, certain
other prayers were refused. Allowing the petition, learned Single Judge
held that election of representative in Bar Council of India from the
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh held on 29.06.2014 as well as
02.08.2014 were both invalid. In the circumstances, learned Single Judge
took the view that the State Bar Council cannot be without any
representative in the Bar Council of India, hence he directed for holding
of fresh elections by the State Bar Council to elect its representative in
the Bar Council of India. Paragraph 45 of the judgment contains the
operative portion of the judgment, which is to the following effect:-
"45. The prayers in the writ petitions, so far as they seek
implementation of the Petitioner s Resolutions dated 29.06.2014
and 07.02.2015 electing the Respondent No. 3 as a member
representative of Petitioner/SBCMP in the Respondent No.1/
PRATAP MEHTA v. SUNIL GUPTA & ORS.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1076
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
BCI, are rejected. However, the prayer quashing the Respondent
No. 1 s Impugned Order dated 05.12.2015 is allowed and
accordingly the Impugned Order dated 05.12.2015 is quashed
and set aside. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2142/2016, i.e., the
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh is directed to hold within
a period of 4 weeks, fresh elections for electing its representative
member in the Respondent No.1/BCI by following the procedure
as prescribed in the BCI Rules. Upon the Petitioner
communicating the result of the election to be held in terms of
the aforesaid directions to the Respondent No. 1/BCI, the said
Respondent No. 1 would take consequential steps to include the
name of the person elected by the Petitioner/SBCMP as its
representative member in the Respondent No. 1/BCI."
9.
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.07.2018, Shri Pratap
Mehta and Bar Council of India filed letters patent appeals before the
Division Bench of the High Court. All the appeals were dismissed by
the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 17.07.2018. Shri Pratap
Mehta aggrieved by said judgment has filed Civil Appeal Nos. 81728173 of 2018 whereas Bar Council of India has filed Civil Appeal Nos.
8174-8177 of 2018. All the appeals have been heard together.
10. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel has appeared for
Shri Pratap Mehta whereas Shri S.N. Bhat has appeared for Bar Council
of India. Shri Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel has appeared for State
Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Nitin Gaur, learned counsel has
appeared on behalf of Shri Sunil Gupta.
11. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants submits that High Court committed an error in exceeding its
jurisdiction under Article 226 by entering into the issues of the facts by
re-appreciating evidence. It is submitted that High Court under Article
226 could not have re-appreciated evidence and come to a different
conclusion to one which was arrived at by Bar Council of India, the
adjudicating authority, regarding election of State Bar Council for electing
a representative to the Bar Council of India. It is submitted that both
learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Delhi High
Court committed an error in holding that there was no agenda for holding
election of the State Bar Council representative for Bar Council of India
for the meeting dated 02.08.2014. It is submitted that for the meeting
dated 02.08.2014, letters of the members of the State Bar Council dated
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1077
29.06.2014 as well as 13.07.2014 itself contain items, which were to be
considered in the meeting to be scheduled, hence agenda of the meeting
was very much clear and High Court erred in setting aside the election
dated 02.08.2014 on an erroneous ground. The meeting dated 02.08.2014
being an adjourned meeting of 29.06.2014, no separate agenda was
required to be issued for the meeting dated 02.08.2014.
12. Shri Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for State
Bar Council submits that the meeting dated 02.08.2014 was not an
adjourned meeting of meeting dated 29.06.2014. He submits that special
meeting was convened by the Secretary of the State Bar Council to
take a decision on the letter dated 29.06.2014 and 13.07.2014 given by
members of the State Bar Council. The question as to whether the
election of representative to the Bar Council of India was validly held on
29.06.2014, was a disputed question, which was required to be decided
before holding any fresh election, hence no fresh election could have
been held on 02.08.2014. He further submits that the Bar Council of
India Rules framed under the Advocates Act, 1961 are statutory rules,
which govern election of the member of the State Bar Council to the
Bar Council of India, which election is to be held in accordance with the
Statutory Rules. The election dated 02.08.2014 for electing a member
of the State Bar Council to the Bar Council of India having not been held
in accordance with Part II of Bar Council of India Rules has rightly
been invalidated by the High Court. It is submitted that election dated
02.08.2014 is in breach of Rules 2, 3 and 7. He further submits that
State Bar Council having already elected Shri Sunil Gupta as its member
in the Bar Council of India on 29.06.2014, the said election could not
have been set aside except in accordance with the procedure as
prescribed in Rule 9 of the Bar Council of India Rules. There was no
challenge to the election dated 29.06.2014 of Shri Sunil Gupta as per
Rule 9, hence it was not within the jurisdiction of State Bar Council to
elect another representative in place of Shri Sunil Gupta. He submits
that in the Election Petition No.1 of 2014 filed by Shri Sunil Gupta in
spite of there being application by Shri Sunil Gupta to withdraw the election
petition in view of the resolution of the State Bar Council dated 07.02.2015,
the Bar Council of India erroneously proceeded to decide the election
petition on 05.12.2015. He further submits that in pursuance of judgment
of learned Single Judge as confirmed by Division Bench on 17.07.2018,
the State Bar Council has fixed 12.08.2018 for holding election of the
State Bar Council's representative in the Bar Council of India, which
PRATAP MEHTA v. SUNIL GUPTA & ORS.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1078
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
election has been held on 12.08.2018 and the result of the election in
pursuance of order of this Court dated 03.10.2018 has been submitted
before this Court in the sealed envelope on the date fixed for hearing.
13. Learned counsel for the Bar Council of India supported the
decision of the Bar Council of India dated 05.12.2015. It is submitted
that in the meeting dated 29.06.2014, no election was held except the
election of Chairman. After election of Chairman, the meeting was
adjourned, which is recorded in the meeting itself. The letter dated
29.06.2014 and 13.07.2014 submitted by members of the State Bar Council
were for fixing a meeting to hold rest of the elections and that meeting
having been fixed for 02.08.2014, no fresh agenda was required to be
issued and there was no illegality in the meeting dated 02.08.2014. It is
further submitted that on 02.08.2014, apart from electing the
representative to the Bar Council of India, rest of the elections were
conducted and no one has any objections regarding elections held on
02.08.2014 except Shri Sunil Gupta, who did not submit his resignation
on that day whereas all other office bearers and members elected on
29.06.2014 has submitted their resignations. He submits that High Court
committed an error in holding that election dated 02.08.2014 in so far as
it relates to representative of State Bar Council in the Bar Council of
India is not correct.
14. We have considered the respective submissions of the parties
and have perused the records.
15. The entire dispute in the present appeals centres round the
election dated 02.08.2014 in so far as it relates to election of Shri Pratap
Mehta as State Bar Council representative in the Bar Council of India.
The learned Single Judge having held that election of Shri Sunil Gupta on
29.06.2014 as State Bar Council representative in the Bar Council of
India was not valid and the said decision having not been challenged
either by the State Bar Council or by Shri Sunil Gupta, the said issue has
become final between the parties. The High Court having held that
election dated 02.08.2014 is not valid in so far as it relates to election of
representative of State Bar Council in the Bar Council of India is
concerned, the only issue to be answered is as to whether the said election
is valid or not?
16. The Advocates Act, 1961, Section 4 provides for the Bar
Council of India. According to Section 4(1)(c) in the Bar Council of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1079
India, one member has to be elected by each State Bar Council from
amongst its members. Section 4(1)(c) is as follows:-
"4. Bar Council of India.-(1) There shall be a Bar Council for
the territories to which this Act extends to be known as the Bar
Council of India which shall consist of the following members,
namely:-
(a) ...
...
...
(b) ...
...
...
(c) one member elected by each State Bar Council from
amongst its members."
17. Under Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961, Bar Council
of India is empowered to make rules for discharging its functions. In
exercise of power under Section 49 and all other enabling powers under
the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India has framed the Bar
Council of India Rules. Chapter I of Part II of the Rules refers to Section
15, Sections 4 and 10B of the Advocates Act, 1961. Chapter I Part II of
the Rules, thus, are to give effect to provisions of Section 4 of the Act,
which provides for constitution of Bar Council of India in which one of
its members to be elected by each State Bar Council from amongst its
members. Rule 2, Rule 3 and rule 7 of Chapter I of Part II of the Rules
are as follows:-
"2. (1) The notice and agenda for the first meeting of the
State Council held after the election of its members on the expiry
of the term of its members elected at the previous election under
Section 8 of the Act may include the election of a member of the
State Council to the Council under Section (1) (c) of the Act.
(2) Every such election shall be held not later than 30 days
after the first meeting of the State Council after election under
Section 8 of the Act.
3. The election of a member of the Council shall be
conducted by the Secretary of the State Council who shall act
as the Returning Officer.
7. Every notice by the Secretary of the State Council fixing
a date for the election of a member to the Council under these
rules shall be sent not less than 15 clear days before the date
PRATAP MEHTA v. SUNIL GUPTA & ORS.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1080
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
fixed for the election. A copy of the said notice shall be sent
simultaneously to the Secretary of the Council."
18. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid Rules indicate 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 as noticed above. Minutes of the
meeting dated 29.06.2014 has been brought on the record in Civil Appeal
Nos. 8174-8177 of 2018 as Annexure A4. A perusal of the proceeding
indicates that all 25 elected members and learned Advocate General,
who is 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 learned 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. It is useful to refer to the above portion of the proceeding
(English translation of the proceeding brought on record), which is to the
following effect:-
"The meeting of the Council started at 11:00 am at morning and
till 12:00 noon the election for the post Chairman was completed
and in wishing the newly elected Chairman and for giving
respectful departure to the Hon'ble Advocate, the working of
the meeting was stayed. Thereafter, again the meeting of general
assembly was started before the present members and the
remaining office bearers and member of the Council were
elected."
19. The proceeding dated 29.06.2014 also contain a resolution as
Resolution No. 7 Part B, by which Shri Sunil Gupta's name 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 effect is another letter dated 13.07.2014 by 13 members of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1081
the Bar Council of State, which was received on 15.07.2014 by the
State Bar Council. Another letter dated 13.07.2014 signed by 13 members
of the State Bar Council was submitted to the State Bar Council of M.P.
requesting for convening a meeting under Rule 122A for considering no
confidence motion against the Chairman of the State Bar Council - Shri
Rameshwar Nikhra. The Officiating Secretary of the State Bar Council
issued a notice dated 16.07.2014 to all the members of the State Bar
Council referring to the letters received from members where election
proceeding of Vice-Chairman, Treasurer and representative to the Bar
Council of India are being disputed and no confidence motion has been
presented against the Chairman. The officiating Secretary has convened
a special meeting dated 02.08.2014 for disposal of aforesaid letters
received from the members of the State Bar Council. It is useful to
extract the entire notice dated 16.07.2014 issued by officiating Secretary,
which is to the following effect:-
"No. - SBC/MP/Important Meeting/General Body/4277/2014,
Date 16/07/2014
To,
All Hon'ble Members
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh,
Sir/Ma'm„
The Special Meeting of the General Body of the State Bar
Council of Madhya Pradesh is scheduled for 2nd August, 2014,
Day-Saturday, in the Meeting Room of the Council's Office at
11: O'clock in the Morning, in which the letter dated 29/06/2014
signed by 9 Hon'bie Members of the Council, two letters dated
13/07/2017 received on 14/07/2014 signed by 11 Hon'ble Member
and Two letters signed by 2 Hon'ble Members received by email dated 15/07/2014 and one letter signed by 1 Hon'ble Member
received on 16/07/2014, vide which because of the election
process of the Vice Chairman of the Council, Treasurer, various
committees including the representative to the Bar Council of
India being disputed, a proposal for no confidence against the
Chairman of the Council has been submitted under Ru1e 122-A
of the Council. In the special meeting both the aforesaid letters are
to be decided. You all are requested to be present in the Meeting.
PRATAP MEHTA v. SUNIL GUPTA & ORS.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1082
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
For the convenience of the Hon'ble Members Rule 122-A of the
Council is as under:-
"122-A The Chairman, Vice Chairman or the Treasurer of the
Council could be removed by a vote of no confidence passed by
majority of the members present and voting in a meeting of the
council especially called for the purpose provided that at least 7
members of the Council have signed the requisition for holding
such a special meeting, and such meeting shall be called within a
period of 21 days from the date of receipt of the requisition by
the Secretary".
Sd/-
(MUKESH M1SHRA)
Officiating Secretary
ENCLOSED- The letters dated 29/06/2014, 14/07/2014, 15/07/
2014 and 16/07/2017 received from the Hon'ble members."
20. Another notice referred to as Amended notice of letter dated
16.07.2014 convening a special meeting was issued on 19.07.2014, which
is to the following effect:-
No. - SBC/MP/Important Meeting/General Body/4311/2014,
Date 19/07/2014
Amended letter for date 16/07/2014 of Special Meeting
To,
All Hon'bie Members
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh,
Sir/Ma' m,
The Special Meeting of the General Body of the State Bar
Council of Madhya Pradesh is scheduled for 2nd August, 2014,
Day-Saturday, in the Meeting Room of the Council's Office at
11: O'clock in the Morning, in which the letter dated 29/06/2014
signed by 9 Hon'ble Members of the Council, two letters dated
13/07/2017 received on 14/07/2014 signed by 11 Hon'bie
Members and Two letters signed by 2 Hon'ble Members received
by e-mail dated 15/07/2014 and two letters signed by 1 Hon'ble
Member received on 16/07/2014, in which vide one letter the
prayer has been made to call for the meeting for election of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1083
Vice-Chairman of Council, Treasurer, election of various
committees along with the representative to the Bar Council of
India and vide the second letter the no-confidence motion has
been presented against the Chairman of the Council under Rule
122-A of the Rules of the Council. In the special meeting both
aforesaid letters are to be decided. You all are requested to be
present in the meeting. [Enclosure-Page 1 to 7]
For the convenience of the Hon'ble Members Rule 122-A of the
Council is as under:-
"122-A The Chairman, Vice Chairman or the Treasurer of the
Council could be removed by a vote of no confidence passed by
majority of the members present and voting in a meeting of the
council especially called for the purpose provided that at least 7
members of the Council have signed the requisition for holding
such a special meeting, and such meeting shall be called within a
period of 21 days from the date of receipt of the requisition by
the Secretary".
Sd/-
(MUKESH M1SHRA)
Officiating Secretary
NOTE- The letters received from the Hon'bie Members in
relation to the Special Meeting has already been sent alongwith
the letter dated 16/07/2014."
21. The notice dated 16.07.2014 as well as dated 19.07.2014
clearly indicate that special meeting was convened for taking a decision
on the letters received from members of the Council. The notice dated
19.07.2014 categorically mentions "in the special meeting both
aforesaid letters are to be decided". The letters dated 29.06.2014
and 13.07.2014 has been referred in the notice where following two
subjects were mentioned:-
(a)
Request for convening a meeting for conducting elections of the
rest of the office bearers and members;
(b)
Under Rule 122-A, considering the motion of no confidence given
by 13 members of the Bar Council against the Chairman,
Rameshwar Nikhra.
PRATAP MEHTA v. SUNIL GUPTA & ORS.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1084
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
22. The notice dated 16.07.2014 clearly indicate that it did not
contain any agenda for the meeting. The notice convening the meeting
only referred to consideration of letters received from the members,
which was specifically mentioned as noticed above. The subject
mentioned in both the notices was to the following effect:-
(i) Notice dated 16.07.2014 "in the special meeting both
the aforesaid letters are to be decided";
(ii) Amended notice dated 19.07.2014 "in the special
meeting both aforesaid letters are to be decided".
23. Shackleton on the Law and Practices of Meetings, Fourteenth
Edition, while dealing with the subject "notice" states following:-
"The purpose to be stated
A notice, to be valid, must clearly state the business to be
transacted at the meeting and give all material information to
enable it to be fully understood."
24. It is clear from the aforesaid that notices dated 16.07.2014
and 19.07.2014 were issued not for convening any adjourned meeting
rather special meeting was convened to consider two set of letters given
by members of the Council requesting for convening a meeting for holding
elections of office bearers and the members of different Committees
including representative to Bar Council of India and for considering no
confidence motion against the Chairman of the State Bar Council. In
the notice dated 16.07.2014 as well as notice dated 19.07.2014, the subject
of special meeting was thus for disposal of letters received by the
members of the Council. It is to be noted that the minutes of the
proceeding dated 29.06.2014 has recorded and signed by Chairman
containing the election of not only the Chairman rather election of other
office bearers and different representatives, which is clear from the
proceedings brought on the record by Bar Council of India itself as
Annexure A4. It is a well established principle that minutes of the
proceeding signed by the Chairman are prima facie evidence of
proceeding and decisions recorded therein are deemed to be valid until
contrary is proved. Shackleton, while dealing with minutes as evidence
in Chapter 8 states following:-
"8. MINUTES AS EVIDENCE
8-07 In general, minutes form evidence of the matters to which
they refer, which can be relied on in civil proceedings:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1085
'In an action against one or several members of the Gosport
and Forton Water Works Company for the value of lead pipes
supplied by the plaintiffs to the company, after the defendant
had been proved to be a partner in the company the entries in
a book contain-ing a record of the proceedings of the society
produced at its meetings, and open, to the inspection of ail
members, were admissible in evidence against the defendant;
the minutes showed that the order had been authorised by the
society:"
When minutes are signed by the chairman of the meeting, or the
next succeeding meeting, they are prima facie evidence of the
proceedings, and decisions recorded therein are deemed to be
valid until the contrary is proved.