Relief for CA: Delhi HC sets aside ICAI’s decision to Vacate Seat of Member of Council due to absence from Meetings [Read Order]
As the 70th meeting was declared invalid, the "chain" of three consecutive valid meetings was broken. Without 3 consecutive validly convened meetings from which the petitioner was absent, the trigger for an automatic vacancy fails.
The Delhi High Court granted relief to a Chartered Accountant ( CA ) by overturning the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India’s ( ICAI ) decision to vacate his seat in the Northern India Regional Council due to absence from three consecutive meetings.
The court’s primary finding was that the removal process failed to meet the mandatory procedural standards set by the Chartered Accountants Regulations,1988.
The petitioner, CA Guarav Aggarwal who served as an elected Council member for consecutive terms, had been informed in November 2025 that his position was automatically vacated under Regulation 135(3).
As per this regulation, a member loses their seat if they are absent from three consecutive meetings without obtaining formal leave.
The petitioner challenged this, stating a lack of proper notice for several meetings and alleging that some sessions were called with only a few hours' notice, making his attendance impossible.
The Court clarified the nature of Regulation 135(3), describing it as a "deeming fiction." This means that the vacancy of a seat happens automatically by law once the criteria are met, and it does not technically require a separate prior hearing or notice of the vacancy itself.
Consequently, the court rejected the petitioner's argument that his right to natural justice had been violated simply because he wasn't given a hearing before the vacancy was declared.
However, the Court balanced this by stating that because the consequences of an automatic vacancy are so severe, the "preconditions" specifically, the validity of how those meetings were called must be strictly followed.
The issue was the interpretation of Regulation 142, which governs meeting notices. Under the rules, 14 days’ notice is standard. Shorter notice is only permitted under specific conditions: it requires the concurrence of designated office-bearers for a 7-day notice, or the approval of a majority of members for anything shorter.
The Court found that the 70th meeting, held in April 2025, was invalidly convened because only 8 out of 18 members had approved the short notice, falling short of the required majority.
Furthermore, the Court noted that when calculating notice periods, both the day the notice is sent and the day of the meeting must be excluded. Under this, several notices were found to be legally insufficient.
As the 70th meeting was declared invalid, the "chain" of three consecutive valid meetings was broken. Without three consecutive validly convened meetings from which the petitioner was absent, the trigger for an automatic vacancy fails.
The bench of Justice Pushpendra Kumar Kaurav with regards to the prayer for removal of respondent no. 3 as the Chairman of the Council said that “the petitioner has not made out any ground for the same. Neither has any abuse of power, nor any mala fides, been established by the petitioner. In fact, the conduct of the petitioner, in communicating with the Council for other purposes between the impugned meetings, physically attending programmes conducted by the ICAI, etc., would indicate that he was, in fact, not prejudiced by the inadequacy of the impugned notices.”
“In view of the foregoing discussion, the 70th meeting dated 15.04.2025 is hereby declared as having been convened without proper notice. Consequently, the impugned communication dated 06.11.2025, whereby, the petitioner has been informed of the vacation of his seat in the Council, as also the notice of the same date for the 73rd meeting scheduled for 13.11.2025, is set aside” decided the High Court.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
