{"id":146138,"date":"1991-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-09-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991"},"modified":"2018-04-29T01:59:31","modified_gmt":"2018-04-28T20:29:31","slug":"institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991","title":{"rendered":"Institute Of Chartered &#8230; vs Inder Chand Jain on 10 September, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Institute Of Chartered &#8230; vs Inder Chand Jain on 10 September, 1991<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1991 SCR  (3) 921, \t  1992 SCC  Supl.  (1) 433<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Kania<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Kania, M.H.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nINSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OFINDIA AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nINDER CHAND JAIN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT10\/09\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nKANIA, M.H.\nBENCH:\nKANIA, M.H.\nKASLIWAL, N.M. (J)\nFATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 SCR  (3) 921\t  1992 SCC  Supl.  (1) 433\n JT 1991 (4)\t39\t  1991 SCALE  (2)598\n\n\nACT:\n    Chartered  Accountants  Act,  1949--Section\t  30---Char-\ntered Accountants Regulations--Regulation 87(2)--.\"So as  to\nreach  him,  not  later\t than 5.00  P.M.  on  the  specified\ndate\"--Construction of\n    Chartered\t   Accountants\t   Act,\t      1949---Section\n30--Chartered\tAccountants   Regulations--Regulations\t 82,\n87---Nominations  for election to the Council of the  Insti-\ntute  of Chartered Accountants of India sent  by  registered\npost on 17.5. 1991 and 18.5. 1991 received by the  Secretary\non  23.5. 1991 and 27.5. 1991, respectively and not  by\t the\nspecified time and date, (5.00 P.M. on 21.5.1991)--Liable to\nbe rejected.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The Respondent forwarded his nominations for election to\nthe Council of the appellant No. 1--Institute by  registered\npost to the Secretary, Appellant No. 1, on May 17, 1991, and\nMay  18, 1991. They were received on May 23, 1991,  and\t May\n27,  1991 respectively and were rejected on the ground\tthat\nthey  were  received after the time and date fixed  for\t the\nreciept of the nominations, i.e., 5.00 p.m. on May 21, 1991.\n    Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition in\nthe  High  Court seeking a writ of certiorari to  quash\t the\norder rejecting his nominations.\n    The\t Division Bench of the High Court allowed  the\twrit\npetition holding that once the Secretary was satisfied\tthat\na nomination had been duly forwarded by the registered\tpost\nto him at least 48 hours before the specified date and time,\nit  must  be deemed to have been received  within  the\ttime\nprovided.\n    The\t Institute and its Secretary flied the SLP  in\tthis\nCourt contending that under Regulation 87(2),the nominations\nmust  be  forwarded by registered post and  must  reach\t the\nSecretary of' the Council not later\n922\nthan  5.00 p.m. on the specified date, i.e., May  21,  1991;\nthat  the proviso came into play only when a nomination\t was\ndelivered to the Secretary against an acknowledgement before\nthe specified time and specified date and the Secretary\t was\nsatisfied that a valid nomination had been duly forwarded by\nregistered  post to him at least 48 hours before the  speci-\nfied  date  and time; and that the High Court had  erred  in\ndisregarding  the  opening part of the\tproviso\t which\tread\n\"Provided  that a nomination delivered against\tan  acknowl-\nedgement before the aforesaid time and date...\"\n    The\t respondent contended that what was intended  to  be\nprescribed by the use of expression, \"so as to reach him not\nlater  than 5.00 p.m. on the specified date\" in clause\t(ii)\nof sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 87, was that the nomina-\ntions  which  had been forwarded by registered post  to\t the\nSecretary 48 hours before the specified time and date of the\nelection  must\tbe deemed to have reached the  Secretary  in\ntime.\nAllowing the appeal, this Court,\n    HELD:  1.  The entire scheme of  sub-regulation  (2)  of\nRegulation  87\tand the proviso shows that one of  the\tmain\npre-conditions\trequired before a nomination can be said  to\nhave been duly received, is that a valid nomination must  be\nreceived  by  the Secretary before the\tspecified  time\t and\ndate. [926C]\n    2. It is true that the rule, in terms, requires that the\nnominations  should be sent by registered post,\t but  taking\ninto  account the fact that such a nomination might  not  be\nreceived  by the Secretary even though posted more  than  48\nhours  before the specified time and date, it  was  provided\nthat  if the nomination was delivered by hand to the  Secre-\ntary before the specified time and date against acknowledge-\nment, that nomination would be treated as having been valid-\nly  received provided the Secretary was satisfied  that\t the\nnomination  was forwarded by registered post to him  by\t the\ncandidate  48  hours prior to the specified time  and  date.\n[926D-E]\n    3. What is meant by the use of the expression, \"so as to\nreach him not later than 5.00 p.m. on the specified date\" in\nsub-regulation (2) of Regulation 87, is that the  nomination\nmust be forwarded by registered post to the Secretary so  as\nto  reach him in fact or actually reach him not\t later\tthan\n5.00  p.m. on the specified date. The rigour of the rule  is\nrelaxed\t by the proviso under which if a  proper  nomination\nwas\n923\ndelivered  against an acknowledgement before  the  specified\ntime and date, it would be deemed to have been forwarded and\nto  have  reached within the time  prescribed  provided\t the\nSecretary  was satisfied that the nomination had  been\tduly\nforwarded  by the registered post at least 48  hours  before\nthe specified time and date. [926G-927A]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3573  of<br \/>\n1991.\n<\/p>\n<p>    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  25.6.1991  of\t the<br \/>\nBombay High Court in W.P. No. 1926 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n<p>    G. Ramaswamy, Attorney General, K.K. Jain, G.  Banerjee,<br \/>\nPramod Dayal and Ajay K. Jain for the Appellants.<br \/>\n    S.V. Mehta, A.K. Sanghi, Manjul Bajpai and S. Grover for<br \/>\nthe Respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Gopal  Subramanium, Manjul Bajpai and S. Grover for\t the<br \/>\nIntervenor.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nKANIA, J. Leave granted. Counsel heard.\n<\/p>\n<p>    This  appeal  is being disposed of, by consent,  at\t the<br \/>\nstage  of granting of special leave in view of the  urgency.<br \/>\nAppellant No. 1 is the Institute of Chartered Accountants of<br \/>\nIndia,\ta body incorporated under the Chartered\t Accountants<br \/>\nAct, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as &#8220;the Act&#8221;). Appellant<br \/>\nNo. 2 is the Secretary of Appellant No.1, Institute.  Appel-<br \/>\nlant  No.  1 was formed with the object\t of  regulating\t the<br \/>\nprofession  of the Chartered Accountants. Section 9  of\t the<br \/>\nAct  provides for the constitution of the Council of  Appel-<br \/>\nlant No.1, Institute, and prescribes that the affairs of the<br \/>\nsaid  Institute shall be managed by the said  Council  which<br \/>\ncomprises not more than 24 persons elected by the fellows of<br \/>\nthe Institute and 6 persons nominated by the Central Govern-<br \/>\nment. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act provides that<br \/>\nthe  election of the said Council shall be conducted in\t the<br \/>\nprescribed manner. Section 30 of the Act confers powers upon<br \/>\nthe Council to make regulations for the purpose of  carrying<br \/>\nout the objects of the Act. In exercise of the said  powers,<br \/>\nthe  Council  framed  regulations known\t as  &#8220;the  Chartered<br \/>\nAccountants  Regulations&#8221; (hereinafter referred to  as\t&#8220;the<br \/>\nRegulations&#8221;). Chapter VI of the said Regulations<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">924<\/span><br \/>\ndeals with the topic of &#8220;Elections&#8221;. Regulation 82  provides<br \/>\nthat  the Council shall notify in the Gazette of  India,  at<br \/>\nleast  three  months before the &#8216;date of  an  election,\t the<br \/>\ndates fixed for various stages of election of the members of<br \/>\nthe Council, like receipt of nominations. scrutiny of  nomi-<br \/>\nnations, withdrawal of nominations, polling dates and so on.<br \/>\nRegulation 87(1) provides that the Council shall publish  in<br \/>\nthe  Gazette  of India a notice, setting out the  number  of<br \/>\nmembers to be elected and calling for nominations of  candi-<br \/>\ndates  for  election  by a specified date,  at\tleast  three<br \/>\nmonths prior to the date of election. Sub-regulation (2)  of<br \/>\nRegulation  87\twhich is the regulation coming up  for\tcon-<br \/>\nstruction before us reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (2) The nomination of a candidate shall be\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (i) In the appropriate form duly signed by the<br \/>\n\t      candidate and by the proposer and the seconder<br \/>\n\t      both of whom shall be persons entitled to vote<br \/>\n\t      in  the  election\t in  the  relevant  regional<br \/>\n\t      constituency; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (ii)  forwarded  by  registered  post  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      Secretary by name so as to reach him not later<br \/>\n\t      than 5 p.m. on the specified date.<br \/>\n\t\t\tProvided that a nomination delivered<br \/>\n\t      against  an acknowledgement before the  afore-<br \/>\n\t      said  time  and date shall be deemed  to\thave<br \/>\n\t      been so forwarded and so having reached if the<br \/>\n\t      Secretary is satisfied that the nomination has<br \/>\n\t      been duly fowarded by registered post at least<br \/>\n\t      48 hours before the aforesaid time and date.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    Sub-regulation  (3)of Regulation 87 provides inter\talia<br \/>\nfor  the contents of the nominations. We are  not  concerned<br \/>\nwith  the  rest of the regulations for the purpose  of\tthis<br \/>\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t final time for the receipt of the nominations\t,was<br \/>\nfixed as 5.00 p.m. on 20th May, 1991, and it was extended to<br \/>\n5.00 p.m. on 21st May, 1991.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t respondent forwarded his nominations by  registered<br \/>\npost  to  the Secretary on May 17, 1991, and May  18,  1991,<br \/>\nrespectively.  The nominations, however, did not  reach\t the<br \/>\nSecretary by 5.00 p.m. on May 21, 1991, being the final time<br \/>\nand  date  prescribed for the receipt  of  the\tnominations.<br \/>\nActually, they were received by the Secretary of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">925<\/span><br \/>\nthe Council by registered post on May 23, 1991, and May\t 27,<br \/>\n1991,  respectively. These nominations were rejected on\t the<br \/>\nground that they were received after the time fixed for\t the<br \/>\nreceipt\t of the nominations and the name of  the  respondent<br \/>\nwas not included in the list of the candidates who had filed<br \/>\ntheir  nominations  for election to the Council.  Being\t ag-<br \/>\ngrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition in the  Bombay<br \/>\nHigh  Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the  order<br \/>\nrejecting his nominations. The Division Bench of the  Bombay<br \/>\nHigh  Court, which decided the writ petition, took the\tview<br \/>\nthat a plato reading of subregulation (2) of Regulation&#8217;  87<br \/>\nmade  it clear that the Only mode prescribed by the  Regula-<br \/>\ntions is to tender the nomination by registered post and the<br \/>\nrigour\tof the rule that the nominations must  reach  before<br \/>\nthe  specified date and specified time, Was relieved by\t the<br \/>\ninsertion of the proviso. It was held by the Division  Bench<br \/>\nthat once the Secretary was satisfied that a nomination\t had<br \/>\nbeen  duly  fowarded by registered post to him at  least  48<br \/>\nhours before the specified date and time, it must be  deemed<br \/>\nto have been received within the time provided. On the basis<br \/>\nof this conclusion the High Court made the rule absolute. It<br \/>\nis  the correctness of this decision which is sought  to  be<br \/>\nchallenged before us.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It\twas submitted by learned &#8216;Attorney General  who\t ap-<br \/>\npeared on behalf of the appellants that under sub-regulation<br \/>\n(2)  of Regulation 87, the general rule is that the  nomina-<br \/>\ntions  must be forwarded by registered post and\t must  reach<br \/>\nthe Secretary of the Council not later than 5.00 p.m. on the<br \/>\nspecified  date, the specified date in this case  being\t May<br \/>\n21,  1991.  It\twas further urged by him  that\tthe  proviso<br \/>\nwhich, to a certain extent, relaxed this rule came into play<br \/>\nonly  where  a\tnomination was delivered  to  the  Secretary<br \/>\nagainst\t an  acknowledgement before the specified  time\t and<br \/>\nspecified date and the Secretary was satisfied that a  valid<br \/>\nnomination had been duly fowarded by registered post to\t him<br \/>\nat least 48 hours before the specified date and time. It was<br \/>\ncontended  by  learned\tAttorney General  that\tthe  learned<br \/>\nJudges\tof the Bombay High Court had erred  in\tdisregarding<br \/>\nthe opening part of the proviso which read &#8220;provided that  a<br \/>\nnomination  delivered against an acknowledgement before\t the<br \/>\naforesaid time and date&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;  &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tour view, there is a considerable force in the\tsub-<br \/>\nmission of learned Attorney General. It is trite to say that<br \/>\nin construing any regulation or rule it would not be  proper<br \/>\nto  ignore any part of it except in  special  circumstances.<br \/>\nMoreover,  accepting the construction placed by\t the  Bombay<br \/>\nHigh  Court  on the said proviso would lead to\ta  startling<br \/>\nresult; for examle, a nomination might have to be treated as<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">926<\/span><br \/>\nreceived  within the specified the  and.date-even-though  it<br \/>\nmight never have reached the Secretary at all or might reach<br \/>\nthe Secretary after the date of the election, merely because<br \/>\nthe Secretary is satisfied that the nomination had been duly<br \/>\nforwarded to him by registered post at least 48 hours before<br \/>\nthe  specified\ttime  and date. 1 is not  unknown  that\t the<br \/>\nletters\t sent by registered post are  occasionally  received<br \/>\nafter  a long delay of several weeks and on  some  occasions<br \/>\nthey do not reach at all. If the construction placed on\t the<br \/>\nsaid proviso in the impugned judgment were accepted, in such<br \/>\na  case as aforestated the entire election would have to  be<br \/>\nset  aside  leading to great confusion\tand  hardship.\tThis<br \/>\nconsequence must necessarily follow if the view taken by the<br \/>\nBombay\tHigh  Court were to be accepted in  our\t opinion,the<br \/>\nentire\tscheme of sub-regulation (2) and the  proviso  shows<br \/>\nthat one of the main pre-conditions required before a  nomi-<br \/>\nnation\tcan  be said to have been duly received, is  that  a<br \/>\nvalid  nomination must be received by the  Secretary  before<br \/>\nthe specified time and date.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It\tis true that the rule, in terms, requires  that\t the<br \/>\nnominations  should be sent by registered post,\t but  taking<br \/>\ninto  account the fact that such a nomination might  not  be<br \/>\nreceived  by the Secretary even though posted more  than  48<br \/>\nhours  before the specified time and date, it  was  provided<br \/>\nthat if the nomination was delivered, let us say, by hand to<br \/>\nthe  Secretary\tbefore the specified time and  date  against<br \/>\nacknowledgement, that nomination would be treated as  having<br \/>\nbeen  validly received provided the Secretary was  satisfied<br \/>\nthat the nomination was forwarded by registered post to\t him<br \/>\nby  the candidate 48 hours prior to the specified  time\t and<br \/>\ndate.  It was contended on behalf of the respondent that  in<br \/>\nthe light of the proviso to sub-regulation (2) of Regulation<br \/>\n87  what  was intended to be prescribed by the\tuse  of\t the<br \/>\nexpression  so as to reach him not later than 5.00  p.m.  on<br \/>\nthe  specified date in clause (ii) of sub-regulation (2)  of<br \/>\nRegulation  87,\t was  that the nominations  which  had\tbeen<br \/>\nforwarded  by  registered  post to the\tSecretary  48  hours<br \/>\nbefore\tthe specified time and date of the election must  be<br \/>\ndeemed\tto have reached the Secretary in time. In our  view,<br \/>\nthis  contention is fallacious. What is meant by the use  of<br \/>\nthe aforesaid expression in sub-regulation (2) of Regulation<br \/>\n87  is that the nomination must be forwarded  by  registered<br \/>\npost to the.Secretary so as to reach him in fact or actually<br \/>\nreach  him not later than 5.00 p.m. on the  specified  date.<br \/>\nThe rigour of the rule is relaxed by the proviso under which<br \/>\nif  the nomination was delivered against an  acknowledgement<br \/>\nbefore\tthe specified time and date, it would be  deemed  to<br \/>\nhave  been  forwarded  and to have reached  as\tprovided  in<br \/>\nclause\t(ii) of sub-regulation (2) referred to earlier\tpro-<br \/>\nvided the Secretary was satisfied that the nomi-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">927<\/span><\/p>\n<p>nation\thad been duly forwarded by registered post at  least<br \/>\n48 hours before the aforesaid time and date.<br \/>\n    In\tview of the reasoning set out earlier, we set  aside<br \/>\nthe  judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court\t and<br \/>\nwe hold that the nomination of the respondent was liable  to<br \/>\nbe rejected on the ground that it was not received in  time,<br \/>\nas  the\t respondent had failed to deliver to  the  Secretary<br \/>\nagainst an acknowledgment a nomination before the  specified<br \/>\ntime  and date. However, we find that, in the present  case,<br \/>\nthe  elections have already been postponed and the  proposed<br \/>\ndates for elections will now to be probably fixed in October<br \/>\nor  November, 1991. In these circumstances, we\tdirect\tthat<br \/>\nall  the  nominations received upto the end of\tAugust\t1991<br \/>\nmust be treated as received in time provided that the Secre-<br \/>\ntary  is  satisfied that they were forwarded  by  registered<br \/>\npost  48 hours before the time and date\t specified  earlier.<br \/>\nThe Council may fix the elections on any date they  consider<br \/>\nproper. The appeal is allowed to the extent aforesaid.<br \/>\n    Looking  to\t the facts and circumstances  of  the  case,<br \/>\nthere will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>    We may suggest that if the Council so thinks, the  regu-<br \/>\nlations\t may be suitably amended so as to leave no room\t for<br \/>\nambiguity, a difficult task indeed.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V.P.R.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\nallowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">928<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Institute Of Chartered &#8230; vs Inder Chand Jain on 10 September, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 SCR (3) 921, 1992 SCC Supl. (1) 433 Author: M Kania Bench: Kania, M.H. PETITIONER: INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OFINDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: INDER CHAND JAIN DATE OF JUDGMENT10\/09\/1991 BENCH: KANIA, M.H. BENCH: KANIA, M.H. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-146138","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Institute Of Chartered ... vs Inder Chand Jain on 10 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Institute Of Chartered ... vs Inder Chand Jain on 10 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1991-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-28T20:29:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Institute Of Chartered &#8230; vs Inder Chand Jain on 10 September, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-28T20:29:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991\"},\"wordCount\":1829,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991\",\"name\":\"Institute Of Chartered ... vs Inder Chand Jain on 10 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-28T20:29:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Institute Of Chartered &#8230; vs Inder Chand Jain on 10 September, 1991\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Institute Of Chartered ... vs Inder Chand Jain on 10 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Institute Of Chartered ... vs Inder Chand Jain on 10 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-28T20:29:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Institute Of Chartered &#8230; vs Inder Chand Jain on 10 September, 1991","datePublished":"1991-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-28T20:29:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991"},"wordCount":1829,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991","name":"Institute Of Chartered ... vs Inder Chand Jain on 10 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-28T20:29:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institute-of-chartered-vs-inder-chand-jain-on-10-september-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Institute Of Chartered &#8230; vs Inder Chand Jain on 10 September, 1991"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146138","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=146138"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146138\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146138"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146138"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146138"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}